Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Transport Holding Company Act 1968.

NEW WRITS

For Meriden, in the room of Christopher John Salter Rowland, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

For Warwick and Leamington, in the room of the right honourable Sir John Gardiner Sumner Hobson, knight, O.B.E., Q.C. deceased.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Windblown Timber

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the amount of windblown timber this winter.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): The latest estimate is 40 million hoppus feet, of which 22 million are in Forestry Commission woodlands and 18 million in private woodlands.

Mr. Brewis: Are there not many saw mills outwith the affected area which could process this timber if transport could be made more economic? When will the Secretary of State announce a

transport subsidy, as was given by the last Government in 1953?

Mr. Buchan: That point is among the questions which will be considered. We have now received the report of the Action Group, and all aspects of it will be discussed.

Mr. Stodart: Have there been any tangible results? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us anything of the outcome of the Action Group's meeting about a fortnight ago?

Mr. Buchan: We are expecting recommendations from the Forestry Commission on the report almost at once, and we shall be looking at all aspects as soon as they arrive.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, bearing in mind the recent storm damage and also the need to improve the trade balance, he will send a circular to all authorities charged with the building of houses, hospitals and other public buildings to use Scottish timber where possible.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Those concerned in the public services are well aware that timber, like other materials, should be specified by reference to quality, so that there is no discrimination against home-grown timber. But when I receive the advice of the Forestry Commission on the recent report of the Windblow Action Group I will consider whether a circular should be issued.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that is a good proposal. Would he also contact the railways and the Coal Board and other bodies like that to see if they can assist over this blown timber?

Mr. Ross: I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Action Group and those who are in the business of marketing timber are concerned about this, and we will see that as wide publicity as possible is given to their findings.

Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture has declined to draw the attention of the National Coal Board to the possibility of using more home-grown


timber available because of the storm blow? Will he promise to do better than that?

Mr. Ross: We will certainly make known to everyone how much timber is available, and leave it to their good sense to take the necessary action. I think we want to work this out scientifically, rather than just pressing people to declare their interest.

Teachers (Registration)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the number of teachers who have so far registered with the General Teaching Council; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: The progress of registration is a matter for the General Teaching Council. The hon. Member will appreciate, however, that from 1st April only registered teachers will be eligible for permanent appointments in education authority and grant-aided schools and entitled to payment on a prescribed salary scale. I would expect teachers in such schools to register by the due date since it is in their interests to do so.

Mr. Brewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his own attitude to recommendations of the Council on uncertificated teachers has contributed considerably to the reluctance of teachers to register? Will he give an assurance that in future he will give the greatest weight to recommendations of the G.T.C.?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is being a bit unfair. He should appreciate that this is a very difficult question, and the responsibility in respect of employment of teachers and keeping staffs up is the local authorities', not mine. It is a difficult job. The General Teaching Council and all concerned should be congratulated on the progress we have made. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the latest figure for applications is about 23,750, which is getting pretty close to three-fifths of those eligible.

Sir M. Galpern: Are there any steps which my right hon. Friend could take, in addition to answering Questions in the

House, to stimulate the registration of teachers between now and the final date?

Mr. Ross: I assure my hon. Friend that I take every opportunity to try to bring the importance of this matter to the notice of teachers. I delivered a speech to that effect when opening a school in Glasgow a short time ago.

Crime Prevention

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in addition to measures to strengthen the forms of law and order, he will appoint a committee to investigate the possibility of educational and guided recreational activities being developed to prevent the growth of criminal activities through lack of moral teaching and inability intelligently to use leisure.

Mr. Buchan: I agree with my right hon. Friend that positive measures of the kind he has in mind are needed, and the Standing Consultative Council on Youth and Community Service and the Sports Council for Scotland have already been considering how young people might be helped to make better use of their leisure and how sports facilities might be further developed. My right hon. Friend has also arranged with Glasgow Corporation for its officials and mine to examine the particular problem of improving social and recreational facilities in the new housing areas of the city.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the consequences of the decline of church influence in Scotland is that there is an almost complete absence of moral teaching for the young? Will he see what opportunities can be taken to have moral teaching reinstated? I suggest that he enlists the co-operation of the church authorities which arrange broadcasting. A great deal of time is available on the air and the broadcasts reach a large number of children and adults. A good deal of that time is taken on doctrine and not so much on behaviour. It would be a great advantage if citizenship could be introduced into those programmes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have 84 Scottish Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Buchan: I have very much in mind the whole question of social and moral


education. My hon. Friend is also very concerned with this as regards the schools. The consultative committee on the curriculum has been considering this. The broadcasting points which my right hon. Friend mentioned will also be taken into account.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the present series of grants for local youth services, which his been of great help to the work of local youth services in Scotland, be continued?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, Sir. Government grants o the youth organisations increased greatly in recent years, as did local authority grants. We shall do our best to ensure that this progress is continued.

Polmont and Falkirk Bypass

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made with the development of the new Edinburgh-Stirling road, the Polmont motorway; and when he expects it to be completed.

Mr. Ross: I expect the Polmont and Falkirk Bypass to be open to traffic in the autumn of this year.

Roads (Expenditure)

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the additional financial allocation to Scottish local authorities for work on roads this winter.

Mr. Ross: £4,825,896.

Mr. Steele: I am grateful for that reply, which is most encouraging. Is it a 100 per cent. grant from the central authority to the local authorities? What proportion of the money went to the County of Dunbarton?

Mr. Ross: One of the attractions of this, and a reason for the response of the local authorities, was that it was complete reimbursement from central government. Dunbarton County, Dumbarton Town Council and Clydebank did work to the tune of £97,000 and, acting as agents for the central authority on trunk roads, Dunbarton County Council additionally undertook to do work of £26,000. That is a total of £123,000.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what

is the present rate of Government expenditure on roads in Scotland; and what is the increase or decrease compared with five years earlier.

Mr. Ross: Expenditure from the Roads Scotland Vote is expected to be £36·7 million in 1967–68. In 1962–63 it was £20·2 million, but this figure included £3·7 million in respect of grants for maintenance and minor improvement, which are now broadly covered by rate support grant. The increase is thus over £20 million.

Mr. Brown: Apart from my helpful Question—[Laughter.]—it is a change, is it not?—what steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to advise local authorities, transport users and the road haulage industry that the so-called cuts in the future are not cuts but reductions in increases? I do not think that we are getting across to road users in general the work that has been done by the Government.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that my hon. Friend's supplementary question was as helpful as his original Question, and the answers will, given the proper publicity, have the effect he desires. My hon. Friend is right; the road building programme, which is the main part of this, rises from £26·8 million in 1967–68 to £29·7 million in 1968–69, after the moderations, and to £33·5 million in 1969–70.

Mr. G. Campbell: Since the number of registered vehicles has been rapidly increasing, and the money that they contribute in licences and fuel tax greatly exceeds the expenditure on roads, will the Secretary of State press the Minister of Transport to drop the proposals for two new taxes on lorries, which are likely to be especially damaging to Scotland?

Mr. Ross: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting in a question that had nothing to do with the original Question.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the total road expenditure in Scotland in the year 1962–63 and the estimated expenditure for the current year and for next year.

Mr. Ross: £31·1 million in 1962–63, and an estimated £61 million in each of the years 1967–68 and 1968–69.

Mr. Manuel: I am taken aback. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this complete change will be warmly welcomed among local authorities which are being misled by right hon. and hon. Members opposite? Does it not make complete nonsense of the empty propaganda in which they indulge week by week?

Mr. Ross: It is indeed surprising that all this work is being done and all this is being spent on Scottish roads—nearly double what was spent in 1962–63—and we never hear anything about it from hon. Members opposite. I gave the figure of £61 million for each of the next two years, but within the current year there is the £5 million about which I spoke earlier for special winter work.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give the estimated total mileage of motorways in Scotland for the end of next year?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Lady tables that Question, she will get the answer. She will probably find that it has already been answered more than once.

Housing, Glasgow

Mr. Small: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of houses involved in the proposed housing cuts in the City of Glasgow.

Mr. Ross: The limitation of approvals necessitates consultations with housing authorities throughout Scotland, but it is clear that Glasgow's programme will not be affected.

Mr. Small: I am grateful for that Answer. Does my right hon. Friend recall that I have previously put down Questions about certain local authorities which failed to meet targets? Will he reconsider the quota of those which failed to make progress and make an additional allocation to Glasgow?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that we need to do it in that particular way. We shall do this in consultation with the local authorities and our aim is to ensure that we get our total without impinging on slum clearance anywhere or schemes related to economic growth or to acute shortage and difficulties of particular areas.

Mr. Noble: I entirely accept the Secretary of State's real concern about the housing situation in Glasgow. But is he confident that with the extra very great storm damage there will be enough skilled people to carry on the programme as fast as he would like?

Mr. Ross: I have already said that we must watch this pretty carefully, because if we take people off the completion of houses to do urgent work we may be doing more damage to the completion programme. Moreover, if slaters are not on the roofs at particular times in relation to the completion of new houses, that throws out other tradesmen and creates unemployment. But I understand that the programme is progressing reasonably well at present.

Houses (Demolition)

Mr. Small: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of houses demolished in Scotland during the years 1965, 1966 and 1967, and the total number demolished in the years 1962, 1963 and 1964.

Mr. Ross: Figures for the last quarter of 1967 are not yet available. In the three years from 1st October, 1964, to 30th September, 1967, 36,947 houses were demolished, and in the previous three years, 26,378.

Mr. Small: I am grateful for that increased progress in the removal of obsolescence. But will my right hon. Friend concentrate on local difficulties in getting demolition progressed in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: That is one of the matters to which we are applying our minds, and we have had the advantage of the Cullingworth Report. I am satisfied that we need to make even better progress if we are to achieve any of these targets. Apart from this, it must be remembered that we are here talking only of slums demolished. For those taken out of use and not yet demolished the figures are about 50,000 for the past three years, compared with 37,500 in the three years before.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Do those figures include or exclude houses demolished for road works?

Mr. Ross: I think that such houses will probably be included in the total figures I have given of demolished and closed houses.

House-Building Costs

Mr. W. Baxter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the study of comparisons between house-building costs in England and Scotland: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: I cannot as yet add anything to the reply given on 6th December, 1967 to ray hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton).—[Vol. 755, c. 1416–17.]

Mr. Baxter: I am very sorry to hear my right hon. Friend say so, because the problem of trying to encourage people to come to Scotland has been aggravated by the propaganda about the price of houses in Scotland. If a fair comparison were made, it would show clearly that we are quite competitive in this respect.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend's point was answered on 6th December when my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that the Heriot-Watt University is undertaking a study of this matter which will take three years. In the meantime, we must bear in mind that our building regulations, which are related to climatic conditions amongst other things, affect the cost of houses in Scotland.

Local Authority Rates

Mr. W. Baxter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated average increase in local authority rates for the current year; and how this increase compares with previous years.

Mr. Ross: I estimate the increase in total rate demand in 1967–68 to be about 1·7 per cent., equivalent to a reduction of 6d. for domestic ratepayers, and an increase of 4d. for non-domestic ratepayers. For previous years the latest figures show increases of 7·5 per cent. in 1964–65, 9 per cent. in 1965–66 and 17 per cent. in 1966–67.

Mr. Baxter: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that

higher rating in Scotland is having a detrimental effect in attracting industrialists to Scotland? Will he review the whole rating system as it applies to Scotland vis-à-vis England?

Mr. Ross: I think my hon. Friend is wrong in suggesting that there is a detrimental effect on industrialists coming to Scotland because, in the past two or three years, they have been coming there at a greater rate than ever before. In contrast with England and Wales, industry in Scotland still has the benefit of a certain amount of derating.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in Glasgow, commercial firms are being forced out of business by high rates? Does he recall his promise on two occasions that something would be done? When shall we have action to save Glasgow from committing economic suicide?

Mr. Ross: I have never given any rash promises to do anything quickly about this. The business acumen of those firms should have been such that they could appreciate exactly what they were doing when they took over their premises and accepted the leases, bearing in mind the existing valuation laws in Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Older Pupils (Grants)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average grant per pupil paid in respect of pupils continuing at school in Scotland beyond the normal leaving date.

Mr. Buchan: £42 in session 1966–67.

Mr. Lawson: Has my hon. Friend considered why it is that the pupil at school is so much less generously treated than the pupil at university? Will he give the reasons and perhaps try to do something about it?

Mr. Buchan: I would not like to analyse all the reasons now, but one is the fact that pupils at university are much older and would have a greater earning capacity than a youngster staying on at school after the age of 15.

Schools (Pupil-Teacher Ratio)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the ratio of pupils to teachers in Scottish primary and secondary schools in 1938, 1958, and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Buchan: 26·9, 24·7 and 23·3, the last figure being for 1966–67. Only full-time certificated teachers are counted.

Mr. Lawson: As the number of teachers per student has increased over a period—the ratio has improved in this respect—can my hon. Friend give us an understanding why there is a constant apparent failure to use the increased number of students? Why is there difficulty about student teachers when we have more teachers than ever before in relation to the number of students?

Mr. Buchan: One reason is the nature of the curriculum and the broadening of the syllabus.

Mr. Grimond: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the postponement of the raising of the school leaving age is only for two years? Can he tell us what the teacher-child ratio will be when it is raised and that it will be no worse than it is at present?

Mr. Buchan: This point has been adequately dealt with in the House in the last month and the assurances the right hon. Gentleman asks for have been given.

Mr. MacArthur: The teacher-pupil ratio after the raising of the school leaving age is critical to the whole of this problem. Will the hon. Gentleman give an estimate of what that ratio will be and tell us what new initiatives he is taking to provide the expertise we need if the raising of the school leaving age is to be practicable?

Mr. Buchan: As a teacher throughout the 13 years of neglect of Scottish education before we came to power, I am conscious of the problems facing us. In 1966–67, the ratio in secondary schools was 16, so we are achieving progress. But it would be impossible to estimate what the ratio might be in future. It will depend entirely on the success of our very considerable efforts.

Rent Assessment Committees

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the rent assessment committees under the Rent Act, 1965, are functioning in accordance with the purpose of the Act by fixing fair rents for landlord and tenant alike; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: Yes, Sir. I consider that the committees are doing satisfactorily what the Act requires of them.

Mr. Hunter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that information has reached me that rent assessment committees are fixing rents far higher than those recommended by the rent officers? Is he also aware that, in effect, this means that certain tenants are being evicted because of lack of money to pay the new rents? Will he look further into this?

Mr. Ross: I will be glad to look further into this matter but my information is that greater use of the rent officer system is being made by those landlords whose rents are relatively low in order to increase them. Among those increases taken to appeal, 37 per cent. were in respect of rents which were under 10s. a week and 43 per cent. were rents between 10s. and £1 a week.

Housing, Fife

Mr Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of houses involved in the proposed housing cuts in the County of Fife.

Mr. Ross: As I said earier, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small), the limitation of approvals necessitates consultations with housing authorities throughout Scotland. As a first step, we have asked them which schemes in their programmes are likely to come to tender stage in 1968.

Mr. Hunter: I thank my right hon. Friend. Does this mean that there will be no cuts in house building in Fife? If so, will he give an assurance that this trend will be carried on over the next two years?

Mr. Ross: It is no good my saying that we are to have discussions with Fife


if I give the answer to those discussions before they have taken place. We had better wait and see.

Mr. Manuel: Can my right hon. Friend make it clear that, if the County of Fife concentrated solely in the next year on slum clearance building, it would not have a cut at all?

Mr. Ross: Let us be realistic. The County of Fife has problems in relation to building for economic growth as well as slum clearance. I have given an assurance that, as far as possible, we shall see that there are no cuts or moderation of the increase. The figure of 34,500 is greater than we expected over the last year. We shall not affect slum clearance, the urgent need for economic growth or building to remedy a shortage of houses.

Fisheries (Damage by Seals)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the National Trust regarding damage by seals to fishing on the east coast of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: None directly, but my right hon. Friend has been closely associated with the arrangements for the meeting of scientists to which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food referred in the Answer he gave on 28th February. This meeting will consider, among other things, evidence, to which the fisheries scientists of my Department have contributed, about damage done by seals to Scottish salmon and inshore fisheries.—[Vol. 759, c. 1397–8.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In view of the damage to fishing nets which continues to take place, can the hon. Gentleman show more urgency about this? There has been a good deal of talk about this recently but little has been done.

Mr. Buchan: One of the problems is that the National Trust is the owner of the Fame Islands and it has not allowed such a cull to be carried out. We are not the owners and it is a matter for discussion between the National Trust and the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the seal acts as an alternative

host to a parasitic worm in the haddock which leads to a significant reduction in the stocks of haddock as a direct result of the increase in the number of seals?

Mr. Buchan: I have discussed this problem with the scientists and have seen the work being done.

Offensive Weapons (Powers of Police)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from local authorities and from other bodies in Scotland regarding an increase in the powers of the police to search for offensive weapons; when these representations were made; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has completed his consideration of the law relating to the search by the police of individuals for offensive weapons; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Buchan: The Glasgow magistrates asked towards the end of last year for additional powers for the police to search persons whom they have reasonable grounds to believe to be carrying an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse in contravention of Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1953. The Chief Constables' (Scotland) Association indicated in January that such additional powers of search would be welcomed by the police generally.
The Lord Advocate has recently had discussions with the Association about the powers of the police in relation to such persons, and my right hon. Friend is considering further in the light of these discussions and other factors the proposal that the police should have additional powers of search.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, last year, the rise in the number of crimes of violence was twice the average of the previous five years? Is it not time to bring these considerations to some sort of conclusion and back up the police and magistrates in the perfectly genuine demands they are making?

Mr. Buchan: Of course I am aware of the increase in violence. It is shared


by many other countries. We have been doing a great deal. The hon. Gentleman must not think that there is one panacea. We are looking into all the implications and we believe that the advice we have given about the existing powers of arrest has helped police and the magistrates considerably.

Mr. Monro: While these lengthy considerations are going on, people in Scotland are being seriously assaulted and others murdered. Is it not time for more speedy action?

Mr. Buchan: I wish hon. Members opposite would show the same seriousness about this problem as do the magistrates, the police and others. They recognise that the difficulties and the problems are not simple. Only certain hon. Members opposite seem to think that there is a simple panacea which will solve all the problems. There is not. We are giving proper and urgent consideration to this matter to try and find the right solution.

Mr. Dempsey: Can I ask my hon. Friend if he would think again about the existing powers? Will he try to conduct a survey throughout the country about this, and would he take into consideration how it is almost impossible to obtain a conviction in some cases of arrest? Could I ask him, in the light of recent experience, to give the police authority to detain and to strengthen their powers?

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend has this wrong. The police have the powers of arrest where they have reasonable cause to believe that a person is in possession of an offensive weapon and he may use it in pursuance of a crime. This has now been clarified to the police and the magistrates, and they have told us that they have found this clarification helpful. My hon. Friend should keep abreast of affairs.

Mr. Wylie: Will the hon. Member accept that we on this side of the House consider this matter to be of the utmost gravity and that we accept also that there is no question of a simple solution to the problem? Will he also accept from me that if he introduces legislation on these matters it would be generally welcomed, not only by the Glasgow magistrates and

the police, but by the vast majority of law-abiding people in Scotland?

Mr. Buchan: I recognise all that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said—we have discussed this on more than one occasion. The problem cannot be properly considered unless it is recognised that such suggestions are no panaceas. This matter is not being treated with any lack of urgency.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the shortage of police, which is very serious in Scotland, can the Under-Secretary tell us what consideration is being given to bringing in potential policemen from the Army in Germany?

Mr. Buchan: We are looking at all possible sources of recruitment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Roadworks, Glasgow (Demolition of Property)

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses, workshops, offices and shops have been demolished in the city of Glasgow to provide new roads for which he is responsible, and motorways; and what are the total moneys lost in rates by their demolition.

Mr. Ross: Glasgow Corporation is responsible for virtually all the new roads in the city, including motorways, and I do not have the information requested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Buchanan: I am sorry that the information is not available. I am disappointed that it has not been procured in the three weeks during which the Question has been lying on the Table. There is no point in asking a supplementary question.

Mr. Ross: I can assure my hon. Friend that if it had been readily available he would have had the information, even though it is not within our files at the moment. I understand from Glasgow that it would take a very long time, and that an undue amount of work would be involved in getting it.

Productivity and Management Techniques

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to set up, for both sides of industry, intensive productivity courses on the lines of the London Business School where the latest techniques in planning, methods study, incentives and costs could be studied, in order to improve the overall performance of Scottish industry and commerce.

Mr. Ross: A wide range of courses related to productivity and management techniques is already available in Scottish universities and other educational establishments.

Mr. Buchanan: I know that there are such courses readily available in universities for the upper echelons of industry. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a comparatively modern innovation in industry is the full-time shop steward and that these courses are necessary on the shop floor? Is he further aware that they should be made much more easily available than they are?

Mr. Ross: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that Lord Franks in 1963 was invited by the Confederation of British Industry to examine this point. The result was that there was the establishment of two such schools, one in London and one in Manchester. I am glad to say that in recent years there has been a very considerable interest in this in Scotland and I hope that it will lead to some action being taken. I would tell my hon. Friend that the University of Glasgow, in association with the C.T.C. Scottish Committee, is holding a one-day study conference on 18th March, on management training and education, at which the Scottish Department will be represented. It may be that something useful will come out of this.

Primary Education Capital Expenditure)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of capital spent on primary education in the years 1962 to 1967, respectively.

Mr. Buchan: £7·9 million in 1967 compared with an average of £5·7 million in the five preceding years. For further details my hon. Friend may care to consult the published statistics.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a substantial volume of educational opinion in Scotland which believes that if greater priority were given here it would mean a greater attainment level among children of secondary school education?

Mr. Buchan: I am aware of that. The hon. Member knows my own activities in that direction in the past. I accept that.

School Building programme

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proposed capital building programme in primary school building for 1968; and what effect devaluation has had on the projects.

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the changes that have been made in the Scottish school building programme as a result of recent cuts in public expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the post-devaluation cuts in public spending have had on the current primary school building programme for Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: School building programmes are in course of adjustment to achieve the cuts announced in January and the details required are not available. My right hon. Friend sees no need at present to consider increasing the recently established school building cost units because of devaluation.

Mr. Eadie: The House will welcome the fact that very little impact has been made upon these proposals as a result of the devaluation cuts. Would my hon. Friend agree that there is a sound educational case for allocating a greater priority to primary education?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, there is a sound educational case for every expansion in education. My hon. Friend knows the background of the economic stringency within which priorities can be given.

Miss Herbison: My hon. Friend will be aware how important it is, particularly in primary schools, for children to be educated in modern schools. Would he ensure that as little as possible to make students suffer will be done in that sector?

Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the value of starts in 1967–68 is still expected to reach the original £26 million target.

Mr. Steel: Is the Minister aware that I have had considerable correspondence with his hon. Friend about the long delays over the start of the building of a new primary school at Kelso? May I have an assurance that that start will not be further delayed by the post-devaluation cuts?

Mr. Buchan: I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member's Question.

Hill Sheep Subsidy

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give directions to have the 1967 Hill Sheep Subsidy paid now.

Mr. Buchan: Payment of Hill Sheep Subsidy on sheep in flocks at 4th December, 1967, started on 20th February. To date some 8,700 claims involving over £1,750,000 have been paid.

Mr. Mackenzie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply.

Inshore Fishing Grounds (Ross-shire Coast)

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the damage caused to the inshore fishing grounds on the North-West coast of Ross-shire by seine net boats, and in particular the threat to the tourist industry in Ullapool which has become a major sea angling festival centre in recent years, he will take immediate steps to protect those grounds from this illegal fishing.

Mr. Buchan: I have no evidence of extensive illegal fishing in the area, but we shall continue to do our best to see that it does not occur.

Mr. Mackenzie: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind the special claims of Ullapool for the protection of its fishing grounds, in view of the importance of the sea angling festival which started in recent years and promises to be a great success and a special tourist attraction?

Mr. Buchan: We will pay special attention to this. To some extent there is already protection, for example within the Summer Isles, where much of the sea angling takes place. This is a very useful development, helpful to the whole of Scotland and to that particular area. We shall be giving it encouragement.

Crimes of Violence

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the crimes of violence committed in Scotland in the last full year for which statistics are available were perpetrated by individuals with previous convictions and prison sentences, respectively.

Mr. Buchan: A total of 2,929 crimes of violence were made known in 1966. Of the 1,108 persons recorded as convicted of crimes of violence in that year, 996 or 89·9 per cent. were known to have one or more previous convictions of criminal offences.
I regret that the number of persons convicted who had previous prison sentences is not available.

Earl of Dalkeith: Do not these figures highlight the magnitude of the problem of rehabilitation and corrective treatment in prisons, particularly at Borstal level? Can the Minister say what specific action the Government have taken to try to solve the problem?

Mr. Buchan: There are two points to be made here. In the first place, yes I am concerned that our penal institutions should also be reformatory institutions and there is a good deal of work to do to carry this out. The other point is that we can make wrong deductions from these figures. The only deduction that can be made from this high percentage is that among the many who commit criminal offences of any kind there will be a greater percentage who will commit crimes of violence than among the ordinary population.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is there any evidence that this statistic is changing to any degree? Is the Minister satisfied that he is making any progress at all or is the statistic roughly the same from year to year?

Mr. Buchan: I am not aware of any sharp changes in this direction. To some exent the crimes of violence concerning us do not stem from the normal recidivist. Strangely enough recidivists in crimes of violence are not common.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Would my hon. Friend agree that if more money had been spent in the past to remedy overcrowded prisons we might have had a higher rate of rehabilitation?

Mr. Buchan: This is very true. One of the tasks that I have had has been to grapple with the problem arising from the failures in prison building in the past.

Transport Bill

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received to date concerning the effects of proposals in the Transport Bill on the Scottish economy; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: I have received representations from a number of firms and organisations. There has been a general welcome for the parts of the Bill setting up the Scottish Transport Group and providing for the various new bus, ferry, railway and other grants.

Earl of Dalkeith: Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that parts of this Bill contain legislative proposals which are probably more damaging to Scotland's interests than any legislation of the last 100 years? Will he show a little bit of strength of character and stand up to the English Minister of Transport before he drives all of Scotland's people towards Scottish nationalism?

Mr. Ross: I have heard the hon. Gentleman say that about practically every Bill for the benefit of Scotland which has come forward. It only shows how much of the criticism is hysterical, inaccurate and very, very exaggerated.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the anxious concern of many industries in Scotland about both

the two new taxes on lorries and also the quantity licensing proposals? Is he further aware of the estimates which they have made of the extra costs and delays which will be involved? What is he doing about it?

Mr. Ross: I think that I am aware of the anxious concern which has come to me in respect of some of these representations. I am not satisfied that that anxious concern is based on an accurate reading of the Bill. I think that we had better await the detailed debates which are to take place on the Bill which is presently in Committee.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the many misleading speeches and statements being made about the Bill throughout Scotland? Is he further aware that thousands of £s per week are being spent by the Road Haulage Association, with the aid of hon. Members opposite, which would be much more valuable if it went into the Scottish economy instead of being wasted in this way?

Mr. Ross: I am conscious of that. It is not the first time that we have had this on Transport Bills produced from this side of the House. However, I regret that no attention has been paid by hon. Members opposite to what I consider to be one of the greatest measures of devolution brought forward in the House, namely, the establishment within the control of the Secretary of State of the new Scottish Transport Group. No attention is paid to the new bus grants, to the possibility of further grants for rural services, and so on. All that we have is concentration on pure commercialism.

Highlands and Islands Development Board

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the future rôle of the Highlands and Islands Development Board in improving the productivity of agriculture in the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. Ross: In its first report the Board stated its intention, as its overall policy on land use develops, to support measures to strengthen and develop Highland agriculture, and to consider


means of filling any gaps in the arrangements for such development. I accept this general statement of the Board's rôle.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my right hon. friend aware that there has been talk emanating from the Board in recent months of a statement in the nature of a White Paper outlining the Board's priorities? That would be very welcome in the Highlands where it is not clear whether the Board is giving sufficient attention to the problem of land settlement and land reclamation.

Mr. Ross: I understand that the Board has prepared a statement about its priorities, but the timing of its publication is a matter for the Board. However, I do not think that we should overlook the fact that the Board has taken an interest and been helpful in respect of certain specific projects. I am thinking, for instance, of the scheme for the marketing of weaned calves from the Uists. It is considering proposals for comprehensive development, including agriculture, in Mull and the Strath of Kildonan.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the right hon. Gentleman say to the Highlands and Islands Development Board that it should make agricultural reclamation one of its main priorities?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that I should say any such thing to the Board. It is in a position to judge exactly the right thing to do, bearing in mind the help already given, the responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the work which is being done and must be done by the Crofters Commission. The Board does not require prompting from me.

Mr. Stodart: Would the right hon. Gentleman request the Board to exercise vigilance when it comes to taking good agricultural land for industrial development and point out that it should not do this if other land which is not so good is reasonably available?

Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman has a particular scheme in mind. He will probably find that the Board gave evidence in that inquiry.

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he

has received from the Highlands and Islands Development Board since its inception regarding the exploitation of the mineral resources of the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. Ross: I have no formal proposals from the Board for the exploitation of mineral resources in its area.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is probably one of the largest single untapped resources in the Highlands and that if we are to have massive industrial development of the North, particularly of the north-west corner of Sutherland, the exploitation of the mineral resources of potassium and magnesium in that area should be undertaken as quickly as possible?

Mr. Ross: We must watch the position carefully. We do not undertake things as quickly as possible before discovering whether they are worth while. But the Board is aware of the importance of mineral resources and is anxious to promote development. As soon as it was set up, it sought the advice of an independent expert. It followed that up with discussions with the Chief Geologist of the Atomic Energy Division of the Institute of Geological Studies. It is now instituting geochemical surveys in selected areas. No doubt the area which my hon. Friend mentioned will be one of them.

Hospitals (Expenditure)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount spent on hospitals in 1961, 1962 and 1963; and what was the amount spent in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967.

Mr. Buchan: For the financial year beginning 1st April in the years 1961–1963, £62·4 million, £67·3 million, and £74·2 million, respectively; and in the years 1964–1967, £81 million, £90 million, £100·4 million and £110·8 million, respectively. These figures include both capital and revenue expenditure; the figure for 1967–68 is an estimate.

Mr. Hamilton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that wonderful report. Can he tell me whether the progress will be continued and when we are likely to get the new hospital in Motherwell which will mean so much to the constituents of


my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and myself who have been making many representations to his Department?

Mr. Buchan: I cannot give a definite assurance about the Motherwell Hospital. I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations on the development which has taken place. Hospital expenditure increased by 45 per cent. over the four years mentioned in the Question compared with the previous four years.

Mr. Monro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Western Regional Hospital Board is very disappointed at the delay in starting dates announced since devaluation? When is the new general hospital for Dumfries to be started?

Mr. Buchan: The recent statement on hospital building had nothing to do with devaluation or with any other economic statement in the House. The fact was that we had been pushing ahead very quickly. Secondly, we needed suddenly to construct an entirely new hospital, a sick children's hospital, in Glasgow. This meant that we had to push some of the building programme back. The expenditure over the year has been increased by another £6 million to £66 million.

Secondary Schools (Teachers)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he estimates there will be the necessary teachers required for secondary schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: The projection of recent trends in recruitment and wastage would indicate a shortage of some 6,400 qualified secondary teachers in 1973–74 and a surplus of over 7,000 primary teachers. My right hon. Friend is consulting the General Teaching Council about measures to correct this potential imbalance. The prospects of overcoming the secondary shortage depends in part on the outcome of these consultations.

Mr. Hamilton: Realising, of course, the economic difficulties in which the Government find themselves, may I ask my hon. Friend if he can assure me that once we get out of the economic difficulties he will give very serious consideration to an increase of the salaries of secondary

teachers with particular emphasis on teachers of technical subjects?

Mr. Buchan: I cannot, of course, predict what will happen over another three-year period. The present salary negotiations have just recently been completed. It is, of course, correct to say that the quality of recruited staff is one matter which has very high priority.

Miss Herbison: What consideration has the Secretary of State given to the great wastage of talent which takes place between 15 and 18 years of age? Has he given any consideration to it? Would it not be very much better to have better grants for people of that age, so that we could have a greater pool of educated manpower on which to draw?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, my right hon. Friend has established a committee to investigate the whole problem of high school bursaries and this is the kind of point very much in its mind.

Road Accidents

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what percentage the number of road accidents in Scotland fell as between October and November and November and December of last year, respectively.

Mr. Ross: In November accidents involving injuries were about 8½ per cent. fewer than in October, and in December 12 per cent. more than in November, 1967. But seasonal factors are important; total casualties in November were 80 fewer than in November, 1966, while total casualties in December were 247 fewer than in December, 1966.

Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the comparable figures which were given for England and Wales have shown very much better improvement than that? Will he investigate the reason for the shortfall in Scotland? And has he any suggestion as to what the reasons are?

Mr. Ross: The reasons could be social, they could be climatic: it is difficult to say. One of the outstanding facts is that the number of those killed on the roads in November and December, 1966, in Scotland was 201; in 1967, in the same period, the number was 145. That is a very considerable improvement.

Farm Improvement Grant (Storm Damage)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for farm improvement grant arising out of the recent storm damage have been received by his Department; and how many of these have been approved or provisionally approved.

Mr. Buchan: At 29th February, 1,780 applications had been received. In 486 cases, approval or provisional authority has been given.

Mr. Stodart: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the situation of some stress that exists, competitive estimates are still being insisted upon? Are these being obtained in reasonable time, considering the great burden being placed on tradesmen?

Mr. Buchan: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, we are applying the formal rules very leniently, sympathetically and flexibly. I hope he will leave it at that.

Mr. W. Baxter: Can my hon. Friend give some indication of how the Government are proposing to treat smallholders outwith the ambit of the Government's scheme for agricultural undertakings? Many of these people are almost out of business because of the terrific damage done to their properties.

Mr. Buchan: If my hon. Friend will give me specific examples of hardship of the kind he has in mind I will certainly look at them rapidly and sympathetically.

Social Work (Scotland) Bill

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Bill to reform the social services in Scotland will be introduced.

Mr. Ross: The Social Work (Scotland) Bill will be introduced in the House of Lords this week.

Mr. Hannan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will give great satisfaction to social workers and members of the committee who provided the earlier report, but can he indicate how soon we may expect the Bill to come to this House?

Mr. Ross: Well, I should not like to judge the speed with which the other place will deal with legislation—as compared with the speed with which my hon. Friends deal with sewerage in Scotland—but I hope that we shall have it in reasonable time in order to get it on the Statute Book before the end of the Session.

Older Houses (Report)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now completed his consultations with the various bodies concerning the Report of the Housing Advisory Committee on Scotland's Older Houses; whether Glasgow's problem will be considered a special case for greater Government assistance; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: The first round of consultations has now been completed, and I hope it will not be long before I can make a statement.

Mr. Hannan: Can my right hon. Friend indicate whether his statement may need legislation to give effect to the extra powers he will need?

Mr. Ross: I do not want to anticipate what it will contain, but it may be that we shall need legislative powers to deal adequately with this very important matter.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Secretary of State not aware that the problem is even more urgent after the storm damage? In these circumstances, will he review the shameful decision preventing the S.S.H.A. from carrying on building activities in Glasgow?

Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman is, as usual, quite wrong about this. There will be no hold up in building within Glasgow. As he knows, the problem within Glasgow is a limitation of sites. The S.S.H.A. will still be building for Glasgow, although not within Glasgow. The storm damage itself added nothing to our knowledge of the unsatisfactory condition of many of the older houses in Glasgow, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman himself must have known about that long before ever entering this House. He should have been pressing for his Government at that time to take action immediately.

Storm Damage, Glasgow

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how long he now estimates it will take to complete the repair work following the storm which hit Glasgow on the night of 14th–15th January, 1968.

Mr. Ross: I understand from Glasgow Corporation that it expects the repair of its own property to be finished by the end of the year but cannot yet assess how long the repair of privately-owned property will take.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer will not abate in any way the concern of those who signed the petition which I presented to him last week and which bore over 2,000 signatures? Will he do everything he can to eliminate red tape on the working of the loan scheme and in order to speed up the designation of smokeless areas and to attract more roofers and slaters to the area, so that priority can be given to the repair work rather than to new housing?

Mr. Ross: No, we spoke about that last point earlier. I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for the helpful nature of the discussions he had with me when he presented the petition from his constituents. As far as I understand, Glasgow Corporation is doing its very best in very difficult circumstances. There is this difficult question relating to labour. Some manpower has been brought in, and the Ministry of Labour is still looking into the question of what additional manpower can be recruited. As to the question about clean air legislation, of course he will himself be the first to appreciate the difficulties of anticipating orders and waiting for orders being made rather than getting on with the work—and there are financial implications.

Mr. Noble: Will the Secretary of State consider whether he could make a fairly full statement on the storm damage and the ways in which he could speed up consideration of this at an early date in the House as so many Members are deeply concerned?

Mr. Ross: I know the concern of hon. Gentlemen, and I have been replying to them by letter. The Questions which have been put down for today will give

me an oportunity of making further answer to some of these queries publicly. I will, however, look further into this matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. George Thomson. Statement.

RHODESIA (EXECUTIONS)

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
The House will already have learned with deep regret of the execution in Salisbury this morning of the three men whose fate has been so much in all our minds in the last few days. I think that for most of us regret has been accompanied by a sense of shock and outrage at the execution of men, however abhorrent the crimes for which they were sentenced, who had been so long under sentence of death and who had been denied time for their cases to be determined by the court of final appeal. And I would remind the House that, at the time of the executions, proceedings in the Privy Council to challenge their legality had already been begun. I need not dwell on the fact that the executions took place in defiance of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy.
Let me add that nothing can remove or reduce the grave personal responsibility that rests on all those involved in these executions. The legal implications of what has been done are receiving urgent consideration by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
In answer to questions in the last two days, I have urged on the House that we should keep separate the legal and humanitarian considerations on the one hand and the political issues on the other, and I have been grateful for the way in which the House has responded to that urging. But we now have to face the situation which has been created by the régime's decision to execute the three men. That decision defied both common humanity and the Royal Prerogative. It is evident from the reports that we have all seen of protracted meetings yesterday in Salisbury of Mr. Smith and his


colleagues that their decision was a deliberate and considered one.
The régime themselves have thus made it impossible to keep the different issues separate, as I have been trying to do. In particular, there is the matter of the ideas brought back recently from Salisbury by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). When the news of the impending executions reached us, I was carefully considering those ideas together with my colleagues. But the régimehave created a new and grave situation. The House will understand that I would wish to discuss with my colleagues in the Cabinet before giving a considered view of the consequences which flow from today's tragic events in Salisbury.
Finally, I wish to turn to a quite separate point, which I think I ought to mention to the House. It does not arise from the executions but from certain views recently expressed by the Chief Justice of Rhodesia on the constitutional issues. There is an instrument, known as a dormant commission, which empowers the Chief Justice to discharge the duties of the Governor in the event of the latter's disability. It is clearly inappropriate, in the light of the views which Sir Hugh Beadle has expressed, that he should be the person designated to discharge the Governor's duties in that event, and we are therefore taking steps to enable the dormant commission to be revoked.

Mr. Maudling: This is clearly a very grave situation, and I am sure that no one would wish to say anything today which might make things even more difficult. However, may I ask this of the Secretary of State? He has said that he will be having discussions with his colleagues in the Cabinet before giving a considered view. However, will he undertake to give an early considered view to this House, upon which we can then discuss the situation which has now arisen?

Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the restraint of his question, and, of course, I undertake to make a further statement to the House as soon as the Cabinet has had an opportunity to consider the situation.

Mr. Faulds: Since these judicial murders have now taken place, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the judges and officers of the so-called Government of Southern Rhodesia, the warders and the hangman will be held personally responsible and, in due course, after due process of law, will he ensure that proper retribution is exacted, not excluding the death penalty?

Mr. Thomson: As I indicated in my main statement, all these questions are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and, again as I indicated, he is giving urgent consideration to them.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he spoke for the whole House when he referred to the sense of shock which has been felt? May I ask him two questions? First, when these matters are considered by the Cabinet, will consideration be given to whether or not clarification might be sought from the Privy Council on the legal issues outstanding? Secondly, will consideration be given to what powers exist under the 1961 Constitution for the removal of judges?

Mr. Thomson: The first matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman is already under consideration by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I agree with him that important questions arise over the situation in which judges have left the judiciary in Rhodesia recently. Those matters are also receiving consideration.

Sir Dingle Foot: Apart from the grave legal issues involved, would my right hon. Friend not agree that, as has been often maintained from these benches, there can be no valid or honourable settlement with this gang of criminals in Salisbury? May we have an early opportunity of debating these issues and of debating the conduct of Sir Hugh Beadle and his colleagues on the Bench in Rhodesia, who have earned the contempt of the legal profession throughout the world?

Mr. Thomson: Before there is a debate in the House, I think that the House would wish to await the more considered statement that I have promised to it.

Mr. Wall: Does the Minister realise that when a Government in Africa is directly and publicly challenged—

Mr. Faulds: They are not a Government.

Mr. Wall: —it has no alternative but to answer that challenge—

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should have thought that even people like the hon. Member for wherever it is would know that they are not a Government.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must control himself a little.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order. But the hon. Gentleman can submit another, if he wishes.

Mr. Morgan: Is it not a fact, under Rule 167 of the Manual of Procedure of this House, that to speak seditious words constitutes a breach of the order of the House? I submit that to clothe the illegal régime in Rhodesia with any trace of legality amounts to sedition.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is even less a pout of order than the earlier one. Mr. Wall.

Mr. Wall: Does the Minister not appreciate that when a de facto Government in Africa is publicly and openly challenged, it has no alternative but to react to that challenge or lose its authority? Have we not now a position where the Prime Minister has got what he wants in the shape of the final break with Rhodesia for which he has been working since Christmas?

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. When an hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order, he need not point a finger at Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, I was temporarily overcome, and I apologise. Is it necessary for this House to listen to representations made by an hon. Member who is no more than a public relations officer for the Smith régime?

Mr. Faulds: It is disgraceful. As a Member of this House, the hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask—[Interruption.]

Mr. Faulds: He is Smith's apologist and he needs some apologising for.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) cannot contain himself I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber. This is a matter on which there are violently different opinions in the House and both sides must hear opinions with which they disagree.

Mr. Thomson: I think this is the last day that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) should choose to act as an apologist for the Smith régimeand to espouse the dubious doctrines that we hear from Salisbury.

Mr. Shinwell: Although it would be desirable to exercise some prudence and caution in the matter, in view of further statements which my right hon. Friend proposes to make at a later stage, will he be good enough, on behalf of the Government and every Member on this side and, I hope, every Member on the other side, to repudiate the article which appears in the Evening Standard today with the allegation that what has happened today in Rhodesia, the hanging of these men, is due to the action of Her Majesty's Government? Will he repudiate that allegation, which is the result of what I would describe as stinking British journalism?

Mr. Thomson: I certainly repudiate, with all the authority that I can command, these kinds of allegations. I sought to do the constitutional duty that was laid upon me.

Mr. Grimond: First, whatever one may think of the status of the Smith régime, would the Minister agree that the execution of three men, after being kept in prison for three years after sentence of death, is an act of inhumanity almost inconceivable by anyone?
Secondly, would he make it clear that, so far from presenting a challenge to the so-called Government in Salisbury, it was only after it became perfectly clear that they were about to commit this murder


that the Prerogative of Mercy was invoked and issued?

Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I endorse every word of it.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does my right hon. Friend not feel that it is rather strange that, in a week when Parliament is being asked to vote £2,300 million for military weapons, we are incapable of putting down a revolt in a Colony the white population of which is the size of Croydon?

Mr. Thomson: I think I am right in saying that, whatever the House voted this week, my hon. Friend did not feel able to join with the House in voting it. More seriously, I think that the House of Commons has always had its conscience stirred by cases of this kind, but, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, capital cases which have stirred this House in the past have never been of the character of the ones before us today. It will be a poor day when both sides of the House of Commons do not express the feelings of passion which have been expressed.

Mr. Tapsell: Does the Secretary of State recall that it was Winston Churchill who said: "Grass grows quickly over the battlefield; over the scaffold, never."?

Mr. Whitaker: In view of the condemnation which this act has received on both sides, both for its inhumanity and its unconstitutionality, will my right hon. Friend propose new and sterner measures as the régimehas now slammed the door on any possibility of negotiation? Further, will he take the necessary action to remove Sir Hugh Beadle and those judges responsible for denying these men their right of appeal to the Privy Council?

Mr. Thomson: I have already told the House that the position of the judges in Rhodesia is under consideration by the Government. Concerning the first part of my hon. Friend's question, clearly the kind of measures which the Government ought to take are exactly the matters which will have to be considered by the Cabinet.

Sir J. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an explanation for the particular timing which has brought this matter to an end just at a moment when it appeared to most of us that there was the prospect of a political settlement?

An Hon. Member: What an innocent!

Mr. Thomson: The hon. Gentleman ought to direct that question to Salisbury, not to London. The timing of this particular matter was chosen by the people in Salisbury and, in particular, by the decision that was handed down by the judges in Salisbury. The timing was not of the choosing of anybody in this House.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and some of his associates must take their share of the responsibility for this outrage? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that should any of those responsible set foot on British soil or in any country with which we have an extradition treaty the appropriate action will be taken? Will he also say what steps he intends to take to protect those many citizens who are at present under sentence of death in Rhodesia and whose lives are now threatened?

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend will perhaps recollect that in my main statement I said that the question of the grave responsibility that rests on individuals in connection with these executions is being put under consideration by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, whose responsibility these matters are.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman now explain to the House what he did not explain before, namely, why the Governor played no part in these proceedings? Has he resigned? Or is it possible that that very honourable public servant feared political and judicial considerations in this tragic matter might not be kept entirely separate?

Mr. Thomson: As the hon. Member raises this question, I will seek to answer it, though I would prefer to keep as confidential as possible my own exchanges with the Governor, partly to protect him and partly because I do not want to seek


to shelter behind him. The decisions that I have taken have been those that it fell to me to take, and I assure the House that they have been my own. As the hon. Gentleman raises the question, I should tell the House that I have been in constant touch with the Governor, both before and since the Petitions were presented to the Queen, and on these matters the Governor's views and mine have been in close alignment.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, under Section 2(1) of the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, Her Majesty in Council may take such necessary and expedient action to deal with any unconstitutional action that has taken place in Rhodesia as she deems fit? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will tender the appropriate advice to remove judges who have given the cloak of spurious legality to acts of treason and murder?

Mr. Thomson: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that these matters and the strong feelings which have been expressed in the House will be taken fully into account in the considerations I have mentioned.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Commonwealth Secretary realise that, whatever differences of opinion there may be on Rhodesia, the one point on which the whole House is united is in condemning the flouting of the exercise of the Queen's Prerogative?

Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. I was also grateful, though I did not rise to say so, for the extremely apt and moving quotation by his hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) a few minutes ago.

Mr. Winnick: I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that the horror of the crime committed in Salisbury today will be felt for weeks and months or even years ahead. Does he agree that the Leaders of the illegal régimeby their action today have finally closed the door on humanity and international public opinion and have virtually placed themselves outside civilised behaviour?

Mr. Thomson: I think that my hon. Friend has expressed the deep feelings on both sides of the House.

Mr. Evelyn King: While deploring the action of the Smith Government as unwise and inhuman, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recalls the wise words that he used yesterday, that our difficulty is that we have responsibility but no power? Is not that still so, and would not we be wise to remember it?

Mr. Thomson: The trouble about this proposition is that the hon. Gentleman draws exactly the opposite inference from it than is drawn on this side of the House, and indeed by some hon. Members on his side of the House. He believes that because we do not have power to do exactly what we want to do, we should absolve ourselves of all moral responsibility. I think that his is very much a minority view.

Mr. Ogden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that had the Smith régimewished to avoid a direct political challenge to this country it could have done so by acceding to the appeal for clemency made on behalf of the executed men to Mr. Dupont?

Mr. Thomson: I hope that my hon. Friend's words will be taken note of in Salisbury.

Miss Quennell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it will be unfortunate if hon. Members have to wait until next week before hearing the further statement to which he referred earlier? Is it possible to assure the House that the statement will be made before the weekend?

Mr. Thomson: I would not like to give the House that assurance. This is a very grave and serious situation. I think that the wise course is to consider it more carefully before giving the House the Government's views.

Mr. Goodhew: As the right hon. Gentleman has told the House twice this week that the Constitution of Rhodesia delegates the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to the Governor to be exercised on the Queen's behalf, and since Her Majesty's Government maintain that legal authority for government resides with the Governor, and the Governor himself agrees with the Government's action, why was this matter taken to Her Majesty at all?

Mr. Thomson: The matter went to Her Majesty because the solicitors in London acting for the men presented a Petition to Her Majesty. In these circumstances, I was duty bound to tender advice to Her Majesty.

Mr. Henig: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the events of today demonstrate quite clearly that if the British Government are to keep their respect they can have no further dealings whatsoever with any of the members of the so-called Government in Rhodesia? Will he undertake to break off all diplomatic relations, in every sense of the word, and not to send or receive messages, either through any hon. Member of this House, or any other place, to or from these gangsters who are now ruling in Salisbury?

Mr. Thomson: I think my hon. Friend will understand when I say that I do not want to go beyond the words that I used in my main statement. I remind him that we have no diplomatic relations of any kind with the régime in Salisbury.

Mr. John Page: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in exercising Her Prerogative Her Majesty was acting entirely on the advice of the Government?

Mr. Thomson: I think that in an interrogative way the hon. Gentleman is giving a description of the normal constitutional arrangements in this country.

Viscount Lambton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the solicitors representing these men brought this case to Her Majesty's attention?

Mr. Thomson: On Saturday morning.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think the House will feel that in the last few days the Commonwealth Secretary has dealt with a most extraordinarily difficult situation in a way which, on the whole, the whole House has supported. Is it not as well to remember though that what we are trying to do in the long run—and this is why both sides of the House have sought a political settlement with the Rhodesian Governemnt—is to protect all the Africans in Rhodesia and all the Europeans in Rhodesia in future from victimisation on a racial basis? Although we are very emotional at the moment, is

not this worth bearing in mind when we are seeking a long-term settlement?

Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous opening remarks. In his further remarks, he is referring to the principles which were originally laid down by himself while he was Prime Minister, and which we have carried on. They are at the heart of the responsibility which this country has for the people of all races in Rhodesia, a responsibility which the hon. Gentleman who questioned me earlier seemed anxious to dissolve and dismiss. It is precisely because of the need to study the seriousness of this situation that I sought the leave of the House to take some time to give further consideration to it.
I ought to make a small correction to the answer that I gave a moment ago to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). The Petitions were delivered to the Queen during the afternoon of Saturday, not Saturday morning as I said.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we shall be discussing this again at some time.

AGRICULTURE (ANNUAL REVIEW)

3.56 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Frederick Peart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about this year's Annual Agriculture Review, the details of which are in a White Paper available in the Vote Office.
Since the last Annual Review net income and net output have risen in spite of a sharp increase in costs. Productivity has also recovered, and there have been encouraging developments in most of the commodities. The effects of the exceptional determinations we made last year are thus clearly beginning to show.
At this year's Annual Review, the Government have felt it necessary to strike a balance of many considerations. We want to see the upward trend in production maintained, so that agriculture can make its full contribution to import saving on the broad lines of the selective


expansion programme. On the other hand, we must conserve national resources and keep public spending as low as possible. For this reason agriculture, like other industries, must be expected to bear a reasonable proportion of its cost increases, assessed this year at £68½ million, out of rising productivity in the way envisaged in the assurance given by the Government at the 1966 Review.
Cereals production has been increasing, but, as I informed the House in December, we believe that further expansion, particularly of wheat, is necessary to contribute to the growth in demand. We have therefore decided to abolish the standard quantity for wheat and to increase the price by 1s. 6d. a cwt.; to raise the standard quantity for barley by 750,000 tons, and to raise the price both for barley and oats by 5d. I know that the industry will welcome, in particular, the major changes we have made on standard quantities.
On potatoes, we shall be increasing the guaranteed price by 7s. 6d a ton, and we have also undertaken, if support buying should become necessary for the 1968 crop, to make an additional contribution towards the cost, up to a limit of rather more than £1 million. We are also. raising the price of sugar beet by 3s. 6d. a ton.
Production of eggs must be kept in line with the increase in demand, and the guaranteed price will be reduced by 4d. a dozen.
As a result of the decisions we took last year a recovery in the pig herd is now well under way. We want this maintained. Our aim is to keep prices stable over the coming year at a rather higher level than producers are currently getting. We have therefore widened the middle band by 300,000 at each end, and have increased the basic guaranteed price by 1s. a score. As a result pig producers need not fear that further expansion will lead to an early cut in the price. The raising of the top of the middle band, like our decision on the standard quantities for cereals, shows that we are looking for increased production.
The beef and milk herds have been severely hit by the foot-and-mouth outbreak. Even so, expansion has gone on. We want to see this maintained. The guaranteed price of milk will be raised

after allowing for the standard quantity adjustment by 1¼ a gallon. This takes into account the "dilution effect" of expansion of the dairy herd in the interests of beef production. To cover this and higher distributive costs, the milk retail price will be raised from 10d. to 10½d. a pint at the beginning of July. We have recognised the need for a further substantial incentive for beef production. We are therefore raising the guaranteed price for cattle by 11s. a cwt. to £10 a cwt. and, in view of the particular importance of cattle rearing to parts of the United Kingdom, adding £2 to the hill cow subsidy and 30s. to the beef cow subsidy.
Finally, there has been some further decline in the total sheep flock. Nevertheless, there has been some expansion of the flocks in the hills and uplands, which should go further in the light of the changes we made last year in the hill sheep subsidy. This year, in order to maintain an effective outlet for store sheep as well as to assist fattening elsewhere, we are raising the guaranteed price by2½per pound.
In making these determinations, we have concentrated on end prices, since it is here that the impact is likely to be greatest. Overall, they amount to £.52½ million. This is a big sum. But the additional costs which the industry has to bear are also very high. The industry is being expected to bear about one-quarter of these costs, but farmers will still retain about half of the gain from their increasing productivity to improve income and provide resources for further investment. The Government believe that the determinations reached, taken together with those at the 1967 Review, will enable the industry to sustain the encouraging forward momentum that is now under way, and are fully consistent with the needs of the economy as a whole. Our decision has not been easy, but I think that it is fair and right.

Mr. Godber: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, but is he aware that it will be greeted with deep disappointment by all who want British agriculture to expand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Really."]—I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have wanted it as much as us. Would he not agree that the statement boils down to the fact that farmers are


being called upon to pay £16 million of their increased costs out of their own pockets and that to that extent this award is much worse than last year's? Is this not a sharp reminder of the need to adopt a new support system for farming? Although there are some useful points, such as what the right hon. Gentleman said about standard quantities, which will be generally welcomed, precisely what did he mean by the "dilution effect" on milk? We have never had a clear statement on that and the House would welcome clarification. Finally, is it true that the N.F.U.s have refused to accept this award?

Mr. Peart: On the last point, the N.F.U. have not agreed an neither have they disagreed. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should realise that this is a historical review. They have expressed neutrality. I cannot comment: they have neither agreed nor disagreed. Dilution of the pool price was taken into account. As to whether we should examine another system of support, this is not in the Review, which is part of our legislation and the framework within which I must work. A new system is an entirely different matter. There has been no deep disappointment. The right hon. Gentleman is not facing reality. This Review is fair and reasonable and much better than many of those given by his own friends and when he was a junior Minister.

Mr. William Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the award will be received in my part of the world, in the hill sheep and hill cow country, with tremendous appreciation, and that if all sections of the community—forestry workers, farm workers and so on—were dealt with with the same generosity as the farmers in my constituency, the Government would not face this present unpopularity?

Mr. Peart: Anyone who considers the section dealing with the hills and uplands and the increase in the hill subsidies and also in the guaranteed price for sheep cannot fail to appreciate that this award will considerably help those areas.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: Although we understand that this is not an agreed Review, we certainly welcome it as going a considerable way to give what we had

expected. To put the hill and upland farms on a better footing, more was expected per lamb, but, taking this Review in conjunction with last year's, we feel that, if the Minister can assure us that this upward trend will come in the years ahead, we will certainly welcome the Review. Would he consider reviewing the five year expansion programme which began in 1965, in view of the changed conditions?

Mr. Peart: What the hon. Member says, in speaking for the Liberal Party, shows a measure of responsibility not displayed by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who led for the Opposition. This Review will indeed increase momentum and must be taken in conjunction with last year's. I believe that it will be essential to the completion of the selective expansion programme which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that there are important debates ahead. I shall be able to call only a limited number of the very many who seek to catch my eye.

Mrs. Braddock: The Minister has talked about the producer. Can he give us some information about the effect upon the housewife?

Mr. Peart: Certainly. As I said, there will be an increase of ½d. a pint on milk for five months. Broadly speaking this will enable the continued production by our farmers of food at reasonable prices for the community. In that sense, it is reasonable and fair. As Minister, I must strike a balance between producer and consumer, which is what we have done in this Review.

Sir Richard Glyn: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the sharp increases in costs to which he referred have occurred in spite of the greatly increased capital investment in agriculture which has been going on for years? How long does he think that he can expect the British farmer to continue these vast investments, which are greatly to the nation's interests, when he continually decreases instead of increases their income?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that. I wish that he had opposed my predecessors on this, but I never heard his voice then. He must recognise that there are new developments and tremendous technological changes in the industry and that farmers must provide capital investment. There has been a sharp increase in costs and we bore all this in mind in the Review, which is why we have given what we think is a reasonable, sensible and fair one.

Mr. Conlan: Was not my right hon. Friend too kind to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber)? How do the four Price Reviews which my right hon. Friend has introduced since 1964 compare with those introduced by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Minister?

Mr. Peart: It is not for me to refer back to the time when the right hon. Gentleman had a measure of responsibility. I must admit, however, that I have looked at past Annual Reviews and it appears that, on average, I have been responsible for giving £20 million while the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for giving £4 million; so I suppose that to that extent I have done better than the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stodart: Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify what he said earlier when answering a question about the increase in milk? He said that it would be going up for only five months, while in his statement he said that it would be going up from July. Since the figures in the 1967 Price Review showed that the incomes of Scottish farmers, in all sections, were lagging very much behind those of English farmers, would he care to say whether the latest Review will improve that situation? Is not this £68 million increase in costs the grossest piece of inflation we have seen since the last Review introduced by the earlier Labour Government in 1951? Can the right hon. Gentleman provide us with the cheering news that this will he the last Review that the present Government will bring in?

Mr. Peart: If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at what we have done for cattle and sheep, coupled with the fact that there is no change even in the wool price, which is an important factor, and the

increase for sugar beet, he will see that this should have a considerable effect in Scotland, and I hope that it will benefit that region. I entirely agree that the hill and upland areas are also important.
What I said about the price of milk is correct. I confirm that the 1¼. a gallon means 1·2d. on the guaranteed price of milk, plus the standard quantity being raised, together representing 1¼. a gallon. This, in turn, means ½d. on a pint beginning in July.

Mr. Stodart: Permanently?

Mr. Peart: Yes, permanently.
The hon. Gentleman referred to inflation in costs. I recognise that there have been increased costs, but this has been borne in mind in the Review; and that is why the £52½ million will, in the circumstances, partly meet this difficulty. I suggest that, in the circumstances, this figure is reasonable.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the hills and uplands of Scotland this Review, taken in conjunction with last year's Review, will be regarded as a tonic and will be particularly welcome for the end price for sheep and cattle? Is he also aware that the abolition of the standard quantities for wheat and the increase for barley will also be welcome?

Mr. Peart: I am glad that my hon. Friend stresses the importance of the Review to Scotland, unlike the view that appears to be taken by some hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is it correct to say that the standard quantity for milk in the main Scottish Board area is being reduced? Does he consider this to be a fair way of applying the dilution factor, since Scottish farmers will suffer, and should not this have been applied on a national basis?

Mr. Peart: There will be an increase for Scotland. There is no differentiation in this matter in that sense. After all, the Scottish producers were involved in the Review and we had full discussions with them.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Does this Review apply only to Scotland? It seems, Mr. Speaker, that


all the questions have been confined to that part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to correct the Chair in its selection of speakers, he has a method by which to do that, but he cannot do it in this way.

Mr. J. T. Price: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a tonic to us all if when the Government occasionally do something right—[Laughter.]—as they have done on this occasion, we had a little more generosity of spirit and a little less carping from people who are not being honest with themselves? Is it true to say that, despite the carping criticism which my right hon. Friend must occasionally endure, every time a farm comes on to the market its capital value increases to such an extent that young farmers are unable to buy farms for themselves?

Mr. Peart: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I believe that our agricultural policy has been successful and that this Review, when examined carefully alongside the White Paper, will be seen by hon. Gentlemen opposite to be reasonably fair and something for which, in present circumstances and bearing in mind the prices and incomes policy, they should give us credit.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: May I draw the Minister's attention to an Answer given last week by his Parliamentary Secretary, to the effect that increased costs were not a matter of importance to the farmer? In view of the fact that it has been agreed that the costs announced are the highest since the last Socialist Government, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to express a more kindly view of this matter?

Mr. Peart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this has been taken into account. That is why I said that the Review, in achieving a figure of £52½ million, taken with the Schedules, will be accepted by the industry when the matter has been carefully examined.

Mr. Hazell: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having been able to extract from the Treasury and his Cabinet colleagues the amount of money

which the industry is to receive as a result of this Review? May I also assure him that while the additional subsidies and grants may not be all that the members of the N.F.U. were hoping for, in the light of the economic circumstances of the country, I am sure that they really did not expect to get as much as they will be getting?

Mr. Peart: That probably explains the delemma in which they found themselves in considering whether or not to agree about this. However, I am fairly sure that when hon. Members and the farming community have carefully looked at the Schedules and the details in the White Paper, they will accept that the Government have produced a fair and reasonable Review.

Mr. Turton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the broadcast made by the Prime Minister on 20th November, in which he said that agriculture would be stimulated into replacing the food we imported by home grown food? Is he aware that, by the announcement of last Monday, when he imperilled the livestock industry by allowing foreign beef to come in after 15th April, and by this latest announcement, which gives no room for expansion for the agricultural industry, he has falsified the Prime Minister's statement?

Mr. Peart: I suggest that if we took the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, who usually speaks constructively about agriculture, we would be talking ourselves into a depression. If one links this Review with last year's Review, and compares the result with the forecasts that have been made for increased production, one sees that production is up by 6 per cent. over the previous two years. On practically every commodity we see an increase and momentum. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stressed the importance of agriculture. If we can keep this momentum going for a longer period we will achieve the selective expansion programme, and that will be a major contribution to the economy.

Mr. Henry Clark: Is the Minister aware that Tory Ministers of Agriculture past and future will always envy him his back benchers, if they envy him nothing else? Is he content with the increased price for pigs, and does he really believe


that that will put back the profit into pig keeping, remembering that the food bill for every bacon pig has gone up by 30s. as a result of devaluation?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I do. The increase of 1s. a score and the widening of the middle band by 300,000 at both ends will be of great assistance. We are anxious to have increased production and I am sure that these moves will be welcomed by Northern Ireland producers, who were, of course, involved in the discussions on the Review.
My only comment on the hon. Gentleman's remark about my back benchers is that I am glad that he is prepared to pay tribute to my hon. Friends, which reflects on his hon. Friends.

Mr. Bob Brown: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the anxiety caused by the increasing number of workers leaving the land. Is this trend continuing, and has productivity increased to any extent this year? Further, can he say what savings in imports are likely to result from the Price Review?

Mr. Peart: On import saving, the Price Re view was designed to continue the momentum to achieve a selective expansion programme aimed to meet a demand for food of £200 million more in 1970–71. I believe that in that sense the Price Review will make its contribution. More will be produced by British farmers.
The trend is for workers to go out of agriculture, but the rate of decline has slackened.

Mr. Jopling: The right hon. Gentleman never mentioned the most important provision of paragraph 50 of the White Paper, which deals with negotiations to increase the minimum import price of cereals for the 1968 harvest. If, as seems to be very likely, this will considerably increase the cost of animal production, will be guarantee that the extra cost will be recompensed to farmers during the next few months?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman is premature: negotiations are still going on. I cannot say any more.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Scotland is so much concerned, could not the Secretary of State for Scotland be asked to explain—as the Minister said that there was a need for expansion of the dairy herd—why the Government have cut £5 million off school milk and so cut the market for the farmer?

Mr. Speaker: A most ingenious point of order.

NORTH SEA GAS

4.21 p.m.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement.
Members will be aware that I gave an undertaking to keep the House informed of the progress of negotiations on the price of North Sea gas. I am pleased to be able to report that the first of these contracts has been agreed by the Gas Council. The contract is with the Phillips group and covers its share of the Hewett field. The Phillips group comprises Phillips Petroleum, Petrofina, Agip and a group of British interests. Deliveries under the contract will start in October, 1969—earlier if this is possible. It is expected that after a build-up period of about six years the field will be capable of producing some 600 million cubic feet a day, of which the Phillips group have rather more than half.
The basic price for gas supplied at 60 per cent. load factor is 2·87d. per therm. For valley gas—that is to say, extra gas supplied mainly in the summer—the price will be 2·025d. The contract is for 25 years and, as is appropriated in a contract of this length, there is provision for either side to apply for a review of the price if, at any time, it is suffering hardship as a result of changed economic circumstances, with the right to appeal to independent arbitration. In addition, there is provision for limited automatic adjustment of the price by reference to indices reflecting changes in factors affecting production costs with built-in safeguards for the gas industry's marketing position.
I have from the start made clear to both sides the Government's policy objectives in the exploration and development of the North Sea, with particular regard to the impact of the price negotiations. These objectives, as the House is aware,


are directed to securing the maximum benefits for the national economy and the balance of payments, consistent with a fair reward to the producers and encouragement to further exploration. I am particularly pleased that the Gas Council and the Phillips group have been able to reach an agreement which is in line with these objectives.
I have always believed that, given good will and a genuine desire to reach agreement, a fair settlement could be negotiated direct between the parties, and I think that the House will agree that the result reflects credit on the good sense of all those concerned on both sides in these negotiations. I hope that the other groups which have gas to offer will also be able to reach agreement with the Gas Council before long, so that the work of harnessing this great new source of energy for the benefit of the nation can can continue unchecked.

Mr. Maudling: We on this side are glad to know that the log jam that has persisted so long is showing some signs of shifting. As this is a very detailed statement, we shall want to examine it in the light of the criteria the Minister has put forward. Will he add to the criteria he has enunciated the criterion of the importance of protecting the interests of our oil companies in their overseas activities, which add so very much to the balance of payments? Anything done in this country to hamper their overseas activities would, I am sure, be a very bad thing.

Mr. Marsh: I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the contributions made by the British oil companies in their overseas activities are a very real benefit to the economy. I would stress, however, that this is a freely negotiated commercial agreement and, as such, can have no adverse repercussions.

Mr. Peyton: I might say that, at first sight, the agreement does not seem to be too bad at all, but could the Minister say something about the minimum guaranteed take by the Gas Council from the companies? I would also be grateful if he could add anything on the subject of further agreements to follow with other companies.

Mr. Marsh: As to the take, the contract is for 300 million cubic feet a day after the build-up period, at 60 per cent.

load factor. The field should produce at 600 million cubic feet a day. In other negotiations, which will continue, this will be a factor. It will presumably be borne in mind in the course of negotiations, although the fields are very different.

Mr. Eadie: Whilst one will want to examine in detail his statement on the price, would not my right hon. Friend agree that we are talking today about a coal equivalent of about 8 million tons? While we may welcome any settlement, I hope that there will be no exaggeration of the potential here, and that we shall not find ourselves in the position that North Sea gas is oversold.

Mr. Marsh: I have tried desperately, and with a singular lack of success, on more than one occasion in this House, to stress that under the White Paper policy North Sea gas and nuclear power will together amount to a consumption considerably less than coal consumption.

Mr. Ogden: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that there is nothing personal in what I say, but will he agree that the Government are providing a guaranteed market for North Sea Gas, they are providing a guaranteed market for residual oil and they are providing a guaranteed market for nuclear energy? The only market that is not guaranteed by the Government firmly and clearly is that for our own basic indigenous coal industry.

Mr. Marsh: I should have been warned by my hon. Friend's opening remarks. The Government are not guaranteeing markets. The Gas Council have reached a commercial agreement which I should have thought was seen to be clearly to the advantage of the nation as a whole. The coal industry can sell all the coal it can, and has had considerable assistance from the House and the Government to enable it to do so.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that this field is a great deal closer to the shore and shallower than the Leman field of Shell Esso, or, even more so, than the Indefatigable field of Amoco—the Gas Council? Does this mean that he would expect to pay a higher price for gas from those fields?
Secondly, as this contract amounts to an equivalent of about 8 million tons of coal a year, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to amend the figure in the White Paper of about 17 million tons


coal equivalent of natural gas expected to be used in 1970?
Finally, does the Minister envisage that valley gas at 2·025d. per therm would be used by the Central Electricity Generating Board and, if so, in what quantities?

Mr. Marsh: There are no plans at the moment to burn natural gas under C.E.G.B. boilers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is one small boiler at Hams Hall, but that is purely experimental. This use is not proposed at the moment.
As for the figures, the gas take under this contract will build-up to about 300 million cubic feet a day. We hope that other contracts will provide additional gas in line with the White Paper figures.
It is true that this field is the nearest to the shore, but there are many other factors to be considered, such as the nature of the field, and the characteristics prevailing around it. Though the distance from the shore is a factor, there are many other factors as well.

Mr. McGuire: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what effect devaluation had either in reaching a price or increasing the price? Can he tell us whether the 12½ per cent. royalty on the wellhead value of gas will remain constant, or be increased': If an agreement is reached to get more than the 60 per cent. take that my right hon. Friend indicated, is that figure on a firm basis or will it fluctuate upwards, as I hope?

Mr. Marsh: The royalty at the moment is fixed on the wellhead value. The effect of devaluation varies from company to company. It had an effect in causing a temporary break in the negotiations, because there was some difference of opinion between the two sides as to exactly what part devaluation played. But there is no figure one could give, as it varies with every company.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: While welcoming very much the beginning of the commercial use of this gas, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the monopoly position of the Gas Council is not used to delay in any way further exploration and development?

Mr. Marsh: I do not see how the Gas Council would use its monopoly position to delay exploration. I should have thought it is in the interests of the companies and the Gas Council to find more gas. This is to everyone's advantage.

Mr. Whitaker: Has the Minister had equality of information and post-costing from private companies in these negotiations? If so, what is the rate of profit the private companies will make out of the deal?

Mr. Marsh: One cannot post-cost at this stage an operation which has not been completed. There is no comparison between this type of contract and, say, an aircraft contract. The Government have had access to all the information they needed at this stage and are satisfied with it. I would ask the hon. Member to think very carefully before he calls for a cost-plus price in this field because he might find it an extraordinarily expensive business.

Mr. Lane: Will the Minister expand slightly on his statement by telling the House what undertakings have been given by Phillips and their partners in arriving at this agreement about plans for further exploration in the North Sea?

Mr. Marsh: This is not a part of the agreement. One would assume that Phillips would continue to explore, having discovered this amount of profitable gas already. Of course all the companies in the North Sea have programmes to which they are committed.

Mr. Adam Hunter: Does this price include a cost to be borne by the Gas Council for conversion and adjustment of gas appliances of the domestic consumer?

Mr. Marsh: No. The conversion is a charge on the Gas Council. This is a price which enables the Gas Council to market the gas, which is the important thing.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the Minister aware that there will be surprise in some quarters that he does not consider that he has to amend the figures in the White Paper to some extent following discussions leading up to the agreement? As the Phillips organisation has mainly American money and secondly Swedish money, what proportion is British?

Mr. Marsh: About 20 per cent. is British. As to the figures in the White Paper, I am not sure why this should lead to a revision because we have been working on the estimate of 2,000 m.c.f.d. by 1970–71, and that is the first instalment of that figure.

AGE LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent employers from refusing employment to persons on the sole ground that they are aged 45 years or over.
In this House, where the age level of entry is possibly higher than in any other profession, I imagine that there will be a sympathetic response to this proposal. Numerous letters from constituents and others throughout the country indicate the extent of this problem. Too many people with excellent qualifications are applying for jobs and, on being asked their age, are immediately told that they are not required. The purpose of the Bill is not to make jobs available, for that can be done only by a policy of full employment, but, even within the framework of providing jobs for all, it will still be necessary to secure equality of opportunity and equal access to job vacancies for all age groups in the community. This is not the case at present.
On age discrimination at 45, only three members of the Cabinet—the Minister of Technology, the Minister of Power and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—would fit into this category. It is not the purpose of the Bill to develop this point, but in a world where people are living on to a greater age than in any previous period of history and at the same time in terms of mental and physical powers are retaining their faculties to a greater extent, it is becoming increasingly necessary for the nation to make the fullest use of all our available manpower as more and more people become dependent on our labour force.
The International Labour Office, looking at this question on an international basis, reckoned that by the mid-seventies the population over 60 years of age would have increased from 200 million to 300 million. In the 40 to 60 age group in the nation at the moment there is about 9¾ million. We are dealing with a considerable section of the community. The rate of increase in this range is indicated by the fact that at the beginning of the century there were 10 pensionable people for every 100 of working age. In the

1950s there were 20 pensionable people for every 100 of working age, and by the early 1970s the number will be something like 30 in every 100.
Already we hear, even in development districts and some areas of under-employment, talk of shortage of labour in many spheres, shortage of trained management and of skilled and semiskilled workers. The guidance units of the employment exchanges, in a report on change of employment, have said that the over-40s form about 16 per cent. of all their customers wanting job advice. At 45 most men and women are prepared to weigh up their careers so far and to have a look at the prospects for change and the position as it affects their families. The effect on families and the cry of "Too old at 45" prevents many from changing their jobs, although that could be beneficial to the community and the country as a whole as well as to the individual.
I am reminded of this by the death of one of my old political colleagues, John McNair, the former General Secretary of the I.L.P., who, in 1955 at the age of 68, went to university to read French and English history and Greek and Roman culture. At 72 years of age he took his Master of Arts degree with a thesis on the life and work of George Orwell, with whom he was closely associated. John McNair said:
I did not find it difficult to take in things until I was 75.
At 45, said John, a man should be in the prime of his life and full of beans. He has forgotten a lot of nonsense and, if he has kept his brain in good order, he should have no difficulty in changing jobs.
There are many thousands not yet old, not yet voluntarily retired, who find themselves jobless because of arbitrary age discrimination. This is more acute in development districts because of the decline in the basic industries of coal, shipbuilding and railways. The effect is felt throughout the entire community because many who possess skills are also deprived of job opportunities. The over 45s form a large percentage of all unemployed and an even larger percentage of the long-term unemployed. It is difficult on the basis of available statistics to calculate the extent of this. but it is believed that something like 27 per cent.


of all the unemployed are among the age groups I have mentioned and form 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the long-term unemployed. Figures in Britain are difficult to obtain on this matter. In America, which is much further ahead in dealing with this problem than we are, about one-half of all the job opportunities are barred to the over-55s and 25 per cent. of job opportunities are barred to the over-45s.
What we are asking in the Bill is that the employment opportunities for older workers should be increased. They cannot be increased solely by measures eliminating discrimination. They must also be backed by expanding training and educational facilities. About 23 American States have already enacted laws to prohibit discrimination in this field, which take account of the difficulties that are very often presented when legislation of this kind is discussed or when legislation of this kind is envisaged.
Legislation of the kind envisaged in my proposed Bill would prevent employers, labour exchanges and employment agencies from engaging in any discriminatory practices on the basis of age against a potential worker between 45 and 65. It would also prevent employers from indicating in advertising for labour a preference based solely on age. The Bill would determine that age is not a factor in a refusal to employ. Indeed, it would be the primary object of the Bill to promote employment opportunities for older workers based on their ability and not on their age.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Milne, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Mr. William Molloy, Mr. Eric Ogden, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. David Winnick, and Mr. Victor Yates.

AGE LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT

Bill to prevent employers from refusing employment to persons on the sole ground that they are aged 45 years or over, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 17th May, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

TERRITORIAL ARMY

Mr. Speaker: Before the House enters on to the business of Supply, I wish to inform the House that I have not selected the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to the Motion relating to the Territorial Army. Non-selection will not cramp the debate at all.
With regard to the Amendment on Vote A, also in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, I cannot forecast whether the hon. Member will be successful in catching the eye of the Chair during the debate on Vote A, but, if he is successful, he will have an opportunity of moving that Amendment.

Mr. James Ramsden: rose—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek clarification. Would you tell the House whether the debate on Supply takes place first and the debate on Vote A takes place afterwards, because this will determine whether I seek to speak in the first debate or following that?

Mr. Speaker: This is a new procedure. We are now debating in Supply until 10 o'clock a Motion tabled by the Opposition. When we have disposed of that Motion, the Motion relating to Vote A will be moved and we shall discuss Vote A. I hope that that is clear.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Ramsden: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to restore the Territorial Army as a genuine citizen volunteer reserve on which the expansion of our army in war or emergency could be based and which will provide the opportunity of a military training to all who are willing to volunteer.
The House may be surprised to find the proceedings on the traditional Army Estimates day being begun by a speech from this side of the House. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) pointed out, we are taking advantage of the opportunity provided by


the new Supply procedure to give the House a chance to probe a little more deeply and in detail on the three successive Service days into specific aspects of Service administration. We hope that this will be for the convenience of the House and will make for a more useful debate. We shall at any rate try. We hope to conclude these proceedings by 10 o'clock and then to take advantage of the remaining time for the debate to range more widely and for hon. Members to have a chance to raise any wider matter that may be of concern to them.
We move the Motion for two reasons—first, to reassert a point of view about the structure of our reserves and the Territorial Army which we on this side have consistently held since the Labour Government made changes in this regard and, secondly, because it is three years since a review of the reserves and changes in the reserves were made by the Government. We think that it is time that the country had an up-to-date statement of how the Government regard the present structure and the purpose of our reserves. After all, their own strategy has been subject to considerable changes as a result of a succession of Defence Reviews. The brush fire concept of strategy is less in evidence than it used to be.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman yield?

Mr. Ramsden: As the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said yesterday in reply to an interruption, the hon. Gentleman might let me get warmed up. After that, I shall be perfectly prepared to give way to him.
I was saying that there have been changes in the Government's stance. We are no longer to have a presence east of Suez. We are to have a smaller Army and, therefore, presumably in the future a smaller number of regular Reservists. That Army is to be devoted in the main to being able to deal with contingencies arising from conditions on the mainland of Europe—in the European theatre. These contingencies, we learned on Monday from the Secretary of State, may be expected to have a longer conventional duration.
In the face of these circumstances, as I read the figures from the Institute of Strategic Studies, we shall have fewer

citizen reserves in point of numbers than any comparable N.A.T.O. country. We shall be the only N.A.T.O. country, except Canada, that does not have a conscription system with which to replenish the numbers of our reservists. As far as I can see, we shall be the only N.A.T.O. country unable to use its reserves, if need should arise, to put additional formations manned by these reserves into the field.
That, as I see it, is the present position. On the face of it, we would expect that the Government would be coming forward with some new ideas on what the future structure of the reserves should be; or, if not that, that they would be in a more receptive frame of mind than they were three years ago to ideas and suggestions from this side of the House on the constitution of the reserves.

Mr. Robert Howarth: I apologise for having tried to interrupt so early in the debate, but my intervention was relevant to the right hon. Gentleman's opening statement. I do not understand how it is to the advantage of the House to have a debate on a specific aspect of the Army Estimates which goes on for over five hours and then to cram the more general debate into two hours at the end of the day.

Mr. Ramsden: There are two points. First, the question of the reserves is of very wide and deep public concern. It is certainly of very great concern to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. Secondly, those who have had experience of Service debates in the past have tended to make the criticism that a wide-ranging debate has frequently devalued the actual character of the debate. Anyway, we are trying something different this time, and we shall see how we get on.
What is it that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have done about the Reserves during their term of office? The most striking change is that the volunteer citizen army which we once had has gone. The Territorial Army is no more. We sometimes tend to take the name Territorial Army for granted, without thinking enough of what it really implied. It was territorial in the sense that it had a presence in every county and town in the land and represented there the link


between the civilian population and the Regular Army.
It was an army, though not in the sense—here, criticism of the Territorial Army was often misapplied—that it ever expected to have to go to war as an army but in the sense that it consisted of units in being, with a command structure and a system of communications, on which the foundation for those larger armies on the continental scale which we have needed twice in this century, but which we have never thought it worth while to keep as standing armies, could be built. The House will recall that in 1939 it was the Territorial Army which was doubled when we needed to increase the size of our Forces, not the Regular Army.
The question which we raise today is whether it will be possible in the future for any Government to run a credible reserve system without some such organisation as the Territorial Army to support and sustain the Regular Army within it. I shall have more to say about that later.
As for the rest of our Reserves, though there have been changes these are not all that sensational. The Regular Reserves remain much as they were, with much the same rôle, to go as individual reinforcements to the Regular Army. The trouble with the Regular Reserves is that there are never enough of them. They are the best trained men, the most needed, but the numbers are never enough. To make up the numbers we still have the Ever-readies, now under the new name of Special Army Volunteer Reserve. I understand that their recruitment is not going well, which the House will find disappointing. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the deficiencies are mainly in the teeth arms or in the new logistic units which the Government have called into play as support for a possible United Nations force. I hope that he will reassure us also that these new logistic units have an additional or supplementary rôle in support of teeth arm formations of our own, if need be, and are not confined to a rôle in support of the United Nations force.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman has used the term "credible reserve". Will he in the rest of his speech, at his convenience, define

precisely what he means by "credible reserve"?—credible for what, for what eventuality?

Mr. Ramsden: The two occasions on which I have given way suggest that I have not been wise to do so. I shall cover that point in full as my speech proceeds.
I was talking about the structure of the Reserves, apart from the Territorial Army, as we now have them. I come next to what used to be known as the Army Emergency Reserve, mainly specialists, the kind of people whom it is not worth keeping permanently in the Regular Army because their civilian skills equip them readily to do the military jobs for which they are called upon; all they need is periodic training to keep them in military trim. They have turned into the sponsored units of the Army Volunteer Reserve, but their rôle is the same, to provide specialist backing for the limited war force. I understand that they are double-ear-marked for the reinforcement of British Army of the Rhine as well. Again, I hope that we shall be told whether this means that we have the capability, with these reservists, to balance a part of the Rhine Army or the limited war force, but not both; in other words, if we had to mobilise Rhine Army, we should not have a force available to detach elsewhere for limited war. The House ought to be told that.
Then there is what remains of the former Territorial Army, that is, units which are locally raised, locally quartered and locally trained. This is where the main change has been made. On 29th July, 1965, the Secretary of State announced his decision to halve the numbers of the Territorial Army, to abolish scores of units, to get rid of 900 or so drill halls, the headquarters and homes of units in the Territorial Army, and to retain in a new and reorganised force only those elements of the Territorial Army whose function was to balance Rhine Army in time of war, to reinforce Rhine Army on mobilisation.
That was the original decision. At that stage, the T & AVR III did not come into it at all. There was no rôle for it. I shall have more to say about the T & AVR III later. The original decision, which made possible all the rest of the reorganisation, was that we should no


longer need a civilian volunteer force for the defence of the United Kingdom itself, that we should never need the framework on which to construct forces larger than the standing Regular Army which we should be maintaining, that in so far as we had reserves designed to such ends—in the words of the Secretary of State—they were a waste of money, and that all that we should need for the future was what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) described as
a particular contingent for a particular order of battle in a N.A.T.O. strategy which the Secretary of State is now engaged in trying to renegotiate".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 130.]
That was a prescient observation. A significantly different view of N.A.T.O. strategy came out of those negotiations from that which prevailed at the time when right hon. Gentlemen opposite made their original decision about the Territorial Army.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): rose—

Mr. Ramsden: I should prefer to finish this argument, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman has to go at 5 o'clock.

Mr. Healey: I apologise, but as I explained to the right hon. Gentleman I have, unfortunately, an appointment at 5 o'clock which I must keep. At the cost of spoiling part of his speech, perhaps, may I make clear that the N.A.T.O. strategy which I had in mind and towards which we were revising the then strategy was the one for which we devised the reserves in 1965 and 1966. It must be taken as a whole.

Mr. Ramsden: That touches the crux of my argument. I shall show, quoting what the Government have said in support of my argument, that what the right hon. Gentleman says cannot be sustained. We had from him as recently as last Monday a new announcement—it is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has to go—which represents a significant departure from anything we have been told hitherto about N.A.T.O.'s view of a future European conflict and the contingencies in which it might arise.
I ask the House to recall the original grounds which the Government gave for

their decision to reorganise the Territorial Army and to reappraise them in the light of what has happened since, bearing in mind that the decision was taken only three years ago, reappraising them especially in the light of what we were told by the Secretary of State last Monday. In paragraph 3, the 1965 White Paper spelt out the original grounds for the decision:
…it is no longer realistic to maintain ground forces designed to fight another major conventional war of large armies in Europe. The risk of major war in Europe is now small but if it did come it would involve the use of nuclear weapons. This is the basis of the Western Alliance's strategy.
In many speeches since then the Secretary of State has amplified those reasons. I shall not weary the House with too many quotations, but on 27th February last year the right hon. Gentleman said:
As I have often told the House, N.A.T.O. would be compelled to resort to nuclear weapons within days of an attack; and within days of starting to use nuclear weapons organised warfare would become impossible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 111.]

Mr. E. Shinwell: Read on. It is better still later on.

Mr. Ramsden: The right hon. Gentleman can make his speech later. I have read the quotation which is relevant to my argument.

Mr. Shinwell: I made my speech yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman should read it.

Mr. Ramsden: The House will recall that the initial reaction to the Secretary of State's announcement of his reason for deciding to disband the Territorial Army was one of incredulity. What caused the sense of disbelief was not so much anything he said but the feeling that anybody who was prepared to be as dogmatic as he was about the nature of a future war would almost certainly turn out before long to be talking nonsense. The reaction was, "If he is right there may be something in it, but can he possibly be right? How can anybody in that position be as dogmatic as he is prepared to be about the course any future conflict may follow?"
If he were wrong, it would be a pity to have done away with the Territorial Army, to have destroyed it, to have dispensed with our only capability for home


defence and for the expansion of our forces. 'That was the original reaction of hon. Members on this side of the House and a large body of the public. It is already beginning to look more and more as though that reaction was sound. What is the Secretary of State telling us now? On Monday he described, as he has done before, the decisions which have emanated from the N.A.T.O. Council and its discussions on future N.A.T.O. strategy. On Monday he gave us a new one which has not been mentioned before in the House. He said:
Finally—and I believe that this will prove to be the most important decision taken—N.A.T.O. has agreed that the forces which Governments are prepared to make available should be used so as to maximise the Alliance's capability for conventional resistance against a possible attack.
I want to say a word about that decision and probe a little the thinking of the Opposition about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 60.]
The right hon. Gentleman did that on Monday and yesterday, and he had his answer yesterday from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
I want today to probe a little of the Government's thinking on this important new announcement about what came out of the recent discussions on N.A.T.O. strategy, the announcement that N.A.T.O. has
agreed that the forces which Governments are prepared to make available should be used so as to maximise the Alliance's capability for conventional resistance…
That looks to me like a contradiction between the line the Secretary of State took three years ago and the present thinking of N.A.T.O. If it is not a contradiction, I think that it is at least a very significant development in Government thinking which is very relevant to the whole question of the kind of reserves we need. If it is no longer a question of resorting to nuclear weapons within days of an attack, if we are now thinking of maximising the possibilities of conventional resistance, do we not certainly need a home defence force, if only for normal purposes of what I think is called crisis management in the kind of contingency the Secretary of State outlined in his speech? Do we not probably need the capability to man and put in the field larger formations? Where are those capabilities now? We have not got them they have gone. They do not exist.
I think that if the Secretary of State were here he would seek, as he did on Monday, to belittle the significance of the contradiction between his earlier position and his present one. But we do not need to found the argument solely on what he has said. The right hon. Gentleman referred last night to Mr. McNamara's so-called posture statement, his statement to Congress on the 1969–73 defence programme and the 1969 defence budget. It is very interesting to see what he said in it about the present N.A.T.O. thinking on the kind of contingency which could arise in Europe. He said:
The United States has been firmly of the view that the threat of an incredible action is not an effective deterrent. The political leaders of the West are all well aware of the dangers involved in the use of tactical nuclear weapons—and so are the leaders of the Warsaw Pact nations…
Our NATO partners have now acknowledged "—
note the "now"—
the need to plan for a much larger range of contingencies than a massive NATO—wide attack launched with very little warning…The main task for the future, it seems to me, involves not only the setting of realistic force goals for the Alliance, but also the creation of a force structure which can be rapidly adjusted to preserve a balance of military capabilities…
It is in the non-nuclear realm that NATO faces the most challenging military problems,…
The greatest deficiency in the European NATO forces, however, is the lack of an adequate mobilisation base. We, in the United States, have made great progress in raising the combat readiness of our own reserve forces and in providing the means for their movement, and I believe it is most urgent that our European Allies do likewise.

Mr. Dalyell: Where from?

Mr. Ramsden: Where are we to produce the resources from? I shall deal with that point.
I am not relating to the House only what I have read. We have had the benefit of a visit from Mr. Alan Enthoven, head of systems analysis in Mr. McNamara's office, who gave a talk at the Defence Ministry and here at the House. I clearly remember what he said and made a note of some of it, because it emphasises what I have said and was striking and noteworthy. He said that in the American belief the disparity of conventional forces between both sides of the Iron Curtain has been very much over-rated in the past. The


American view is that there is now a much closer balance in the availability of conventional forces, across the Iron Curtain than was originally thought. He added that what N.A.T.O. needs is a greater capability for flexible conventional response, and that one of the best ways to ensure that we have such a capability is for the member countries of N.A.T.O. to maintain available readily mobilisable reserve forces. His conclusion is that such a position could be reached—and that is true of this country—without too great an adjustment to the budgets of the members of N.A.T.O.
When the Government took the decision which stripped the country of its only means of home defence and of the ability to mobilise additional formations and put them in the field, we thought that the right hon. Gentleman might turn out to have been wrong. What is a matter for surprise is how soon events have moved in such a way as to begin to prove him to have been wrong. I do not believe one can escape the conclusion that the use of conventional forces on a much larger scale for a much longer period bulks far larger in N.A.T.O. thinking than it did when the original decision was taken. If that is so, it puts the Government's decision to reorganise the reserves along the lines they have determined in a very different light.
I now turn to the question of the T & AVR III, that part of the Territorial Army which, on the decision of the Government, was eventually left, comprising 87 units in about 150 drill halls. The T & AVR III formed no part of the Government's original plans for the reorganisation of the reserves. The decision to retain it was forced on them by a combination of the pressure of public opinion and the outcome of a debate, which we all very well remember, when the Government escaped defeat by a majority of one.
The decision was that the T & AVR III should be paid for in the main by the Home Office, and in spite of its having got going very successfully—to which Ministers have paid tribute—it is now proposed that it should be disbanded. The whole story of the T & AVR III is not a very edifying one from the point of view of Ministers.

But I understand that talks are in progress between Ministers and the Territorial Army Council. I do not want to say anything to raise political temperatures or make the progress of these talks more difficult. I hope that the outcome will be what the Council wants to see.
However, some things must be said. The Government's decisions in January have created very large and perhaps insuperable difficulties to the continuance of the T & AVR III in its present form. I do not believe that any force is credible whose existence hangs precariously on the judgment of a civil Department of what it can afford to put in its estimates from year to year. It is not a tenable position. No force has a credible future as a military force which is not wholly the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. Nor do I believe that any force can last for long on a cadre basis in a state of suspended animation. Without the revivifying influence of recruits passing through it would wither and die. Any solution which may be achieved on these lines can only be an interim one.
However, I also believe that what does remain of T & AVR III, or what may remain as a result of discussions in progress, will be vital to the reconstruction of a genuine citizen volunteer reserve such as we wish to see. There will be the basis of some 87 units and this is an essential prerequisite. We have to have units in order to create a force. One can quickly train junior N.C.O.s and soldiers, but one cannot quickly train the middle grade officers and N.C.O.s and one cannot quickly replace the goodwill which attaches to an existing unit. The units and, above all, the drill halls must be maintained because a unit must have a base. The drill halls are there and they must be kept.
If hon. Members opposite doubt what I am saying, let them visit a Territorial Army unit, if not in their constituencies then at Buckingham Gate—the London Scottish or the Green Jackets. They will be welcome there as long as they go with open minds. They will be able to learn, by talking not only to Territorials but to Regular officers attached to these units, the value which the Regular Army attaches to their existence and to their continued existence.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is an hon. Member to do when his Territorial drill hall is taken over by a firm which is training workers for an advance factory? The Territorials do not exist in my town.

Mr. Ramsden: I will leave the hon. Gentleman to be answered by any one of my hon. Friends from Scotland who may have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and who will be able to tell him what I suspect he already knows—the feeling in Scotland about the Governments attitude to the Territorial Army.
We have never accepted that there is no home defence rôle for the volunteers—by this I mean a genuine home defence rôle outside the narrow nuclear context. In a European emergency such as the Defence Secretary sketched out earlier this week, regular forces would be already preempted and would not be available for those duties traditionally called, "in aid of the civil power". These include the guarding of key points and the protection of key installations from sabotage, and would require the kind of force such as we no longer have and which the Territorial Army could once have provided.
Such a force, by its presence in uniform during a crisis, developing under the shadow of the potential use in Europe of nuclear weapons, would clearly be calming. The atmosphere at the time of Cuba would be nothing to it. The presence of such a force would have an invaluable steadying influence on the morale of the population. At the very least, it would be something for people to join—something which the Government would be able to tell people they could do in a crisis.
I do not believe that any Government can be confident of its ability to handle a crisis situation in an atmosphere involving a considerable degree of public alarm without the services of such a force to rely on. It was the last House of Commons which insisted on the Government establishing the T & AVR III. This is a different House, but, whatever the Government have in mind now, we are entitled to ask that no further irreversible harm stall be done on the authority of their majority in the present House. This

is for the very simple reason that the Government know that this present House of Commons is no longer representative of the strength of opinion in the country. I say seriously to hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is very real concern in all circles, quite independent of politics, about the prospects for the future of T & AVR III.
Finally there is the question of the cost of the Reserves. It is right that the House should face this question. It is also important that we should see it in the correct perspective. If one looks at the cost of Reserve forces in isolation, whether it be the £40 million that we were spending on the Reserves as we had them, or the £20 million that the present Government are spending, and if one considers how relatively few are the occasions on which the Reserve forces are called upon—and when our Army has a European stance these occasions will be even fewer—it certainly seems a lot of money to be spending.
But to look at the cost of the Reserves as a single item of cost in isolation from the cost of the Army as a whole is no basis for a sound judgment of the real value of the Reserve forces or the real value of a citizen reserve to a standing army. One has to see these figures, £20 million or so, in terms of the £600 million or £700 million which the nation spends in maintaining a standing army.
The question is can we keep a regular standing Army and make it work, and get value for the money spent, unless we give it a link with the civilian population and so secure for it the backing of a substantial element in the civilian population? Do we dare deny to the standing Regular Army, on which we spend so much money, the added flexibility, the added capacity for response to meet the needs of a given situation which the extra small proportion spent on an adequate Reserve can provide? The Regular Army is no use, and whatever we spend on it will be wasted, unless the nation as a whole has the will to support its use in time of need.
Unless that will is there and unless the Government knows that it is there in the civilian population they will never put the Army in the field. If they do so it will be an empty gesture and the bluff will be called. It is the function of a citizen reserve—and this was the value of the


Territorial Army—to reinforce the Regular Army certainly; to be there to serve as a foundation for its expansion, certainly; but more than that, to give to civilian volunteers the chance to identify themselves with the spirit and purpose of the Regular Army, and to embody the nation's will to resist and to fight if need be for the survival of themselves and their country.
It was sometimes difficult, particularly in the context of what I called the "brush-fire strategy" to see the relevance of a civilian reserve for the kind of war which preoccupied everyone's attention in those days. Wars were then thought of as far-off affairs, fought in a sophisticated way by professional soldiers. It is much less difficult to think of it in this way in the European context. On the Government's own view of the future rôle of the Army they ought to give the concept of a genuine citizen reserve further consideration.
On their own argument it has assumed a greater relevance than when they took their original decision. The country recognises this if hon. Gentlemen opposite do not. The volunteers certainly recognise it. They are there and many of them wish to continue being there, even if the Government are not prepared to pay them. They are ready to play their part, and all that they ask is that the Government should give them the chance. We believe that they should give them the chance, and in that belief we commend this Motion to the House.

5.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): The military are sometimes accused of fighting the next war on the basis and plans of the last. I do not find any trace of that in the Ministry of Defence and I did not really expect the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) to put so much emphasis on the 1939 volunteer citizen army. When I first read the Motion I thought that it was reactionary; after hearing the right hon. Gentleman I find it even more reactionary than I expected.
In any case the right hon. Gentleman's Government of 1961 took a very large slice out of the Territorial Army and reduced the establishment from 300,000

to 190,000, with the limit of 123,000 on volunteer recruitment. Many major units, including 13 infantry battalions, disappeared.
The rôle of the T.A. was revised at the same time to give it three tasks. First, it was to reinforce the Regular Army overseas, particularly in B.A.O.R. Second, it was to aid the civil power and reinforce the Regular Army in the United Kingdom. Lastly, the T.A. was to provide a framework on which, in a period of rising tension, general preparations for war could be built up.
On 22nd January, 1964, the right hon. Member announced further changes in the rôle of the T.A. The effect of these alterations was, on the one hand to involve the T.A. more widely in the reinforcement and support of B.A.O.R., and on the other to give the T.A. a firefighting rôle in this country, which identified it more closely with the Civil Defence forces. In making these changes right hon. Gentlemen opposite were acknowledging the obvious truth that the rôle and organisation of the T.A. could not stand still, but had to take account of developments in the wider military scene.
Although they made some changes, our predecessors, as always, did too little too late. They did not follow their logic through, and when the present Government took office in 1964 we found that the Reserves that we had inherited were too large for the needs of national defence, and yet provided too few reinforcements for the Regular Army. The T.A. then was under-trained, under-equipped, not available when required, and organised for the wrong tasks. Otherwise it was all right.
With its three rôles the T.A. had become a hybrid force which could not adequately sustain any of them. It could not meet the high priority requirement of support for the Regular Army overseas because it had not the necessary logistic units—for these the Army Emergency Reserve was relied on. It was not getting sufficient training in its civil defence rôle and it could not act as a framework for expansion for war, because the necessary modern equipment was not there. The uncertainty of purpose which this caused was seriously damaging its morale.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that at the time he is speaking about, when it did not have the equipment, it was in any worse position than it was in 1939 when it did not have the equipment and yet raised a volunteer army?

Mr. Boyden: I will deal with that point in a moment. [Laughter.] Yes, indeed.
It quickly became clear to us that the third rôle, the provision of a framework for expansion, had ceased to be anything more than a fiction which the party opposite had maintained because it had not had the courage to discard it. We decided to abandon this rôle as an irrelevance. Its credibility and value had been eroded over more than a decade since the advent of nuclear weapons. Its maintenance had long ceased to be cost-effective and had become extravagantly wasteful.
A radical reshaping of the Reserves was called for. Our predecessors had shied away from tackling the issue and it was left to this Government to carry through the much needed reorganisation. The effect of that reorganisation was to abolish any rôle for the Territorial Army as a framework on which general preparations for war could be built up. The Motion we are debating today is in practical terms a reversion to that situation. That is why I accuse right hon. Gentlemen opposite of wanting to put the clock back. They often stopped social progress. It is rather rarer that they are disposed towards military obscurantism.
The Government based the 1966 reorganisation on sound, realistic and consistent thinking about the purpose of the Reserves. Our aim was to establish an Army Volunteer Reserve organisation with units better trained and equipped to meet the commitments that might face them. We have achieved our aims.
The reorganisation removed the remaining element of hybridity from the organisation by separating the reinforcement of the Regular Army overseas from the provision of aid to the civil power. These rôles are so widely different in the type of units, in the call-out liability, and in the training they require that we found the only efficient and economical course was to design two separate forces for them. For the first rôle we designed

T & AVR I and II—the Volunteers—and for the second T & AVR III—the Territorials.
The support needed by the Regular Army lies mainly on the technical and logistic side. The Volunteers have a total establishment of 51,000, about three-quarters being logistic and technical. The component units were drawn partly from the Territorial Army and partly through the absorption of the Army Emergency Reserve. The A.E.R., as hon. Members know, was the small separate reserve which had been specially designed for the reinforcement of the Regular Army.
The order of battle for the Volunteers was tailored to current operational needs which fall into two categories. First, for the United Nations. The Goverment have offered to provide logistic support for a United Nations peacekeeping force of about six battalions; the reserves must therefore contain appropriate units which can, if necessary, relieve the Regular Army of this commitment. This is the purpose of T & AVR I. Secondly, the same support was to be provided for N.A.T.O. and conceivably also for a possible major operation outside Europe. The Regular Army is not entirely self-contained on the technical and logistic side so that such units and individual reinforcements needed to balance the order of battle in war must be found from the reserves. Some units of fighting arms are needed also. All these reinforcements are provided in T & AVR II.
In this way, in the recent reorganisation we not only cut out the superfluous elements from the volunteer reserves but we streamlined and tailored the organisation of the remainder to the real needs of the present time. Our reforms went far beyond these matters of organisation, however. The liabilities for call-out were brought up to date. For example, the Volunteers are liable to be called out for service "when warlike operations are in preparation or in progress". This liability is appropriate to Regular Army reinforcements but had previously been confined to part of the Army Emergency Reserve and to part of the Regular Army Reserve. It had been one of the many anomalies of the Territorial Army that it did not have the appropriate liability for the most important of its rôles, Regular Army reinforcement.
The reforms also involved great improvement in equipment. The party opposite had starved the Territorial Army of equipment. By contrast, the Volunteers are being provided with current types of equipment.
The Volunteers have made good progress since they came into existence last year. Their strength is about 38,000 against an establishment of 51,000. We expected to reach a strength of 80 per cent. of establishment or 41,000 and the short fall is not much more than that. Equipment is in good supply. The Volunteers took over sufficient equipment, including armoured cars and artillery, to enable them to train for their operational rôles. There are a few shortages, mainly tractors for Engineer units which should be made good next year, and specialised items for Signals units which should be made good within two or three years. In infantry battalions there is a small deficiency of support weapons which will largely be made good by the end of this year. Provision of combat dress was completed last year and that of service dress to warrant officers, N.C.O.s and soldiers will start in April.
Training in each unit is now closely tailored to its precise operational rôle. Moreover, the improvement in equipment means that training is now more realistic. As a result, the Volunteers are reaching a very high standard of operational readiness.
I turn to T & AVR III. At the time of the reorganisation of the Reserves, we decided there was a case for the creation of a force whose primary rôle would be to assist the police to maintain law and order and to act in support of the civilian authorities in general war. A recruiting limit of 23,000 was set, though in the event numbers have reached only 15,000.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would my hon. Friend remove one of my apprehensions? These units are not supposed to restore law and order except in general war. They are not likely to be used against the civil population.

Mr. Boyden: They are not likely to be used against the civil population. One of the strengths of the Territorial Army is that it is identified with the civil population. Hon. Members have made a great point of that. One of the rôles which it

has been carrying out in the last year or so is to assist the civil population in demolitions and bridge building and various other tasks in aid of the civil community. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hughes: Unfortunately, I have experience of soldiers being used in civil disputes. I wanted my hon. Friend to remove my apprehensions, and I think that he has done so.

Mr. Boyden: I should have thought that the time to which my hon. Friend refers was a long while ago.

Mr. Hughes: Not so long ago.

Mr. Boyden: Government expenditure on this force has been limited to £3 million a year. This is one of the figures which we are discussing in connection with the economies. The force is organised into 87 units, with an average of three units for each civil defence subregion. It is provided with essential equipment for its rôle: this is mainly small arms, wireless sets and vehicles. Training is limited to twelve days a year, including an 8-day camp.
Thus from the outset the T & AVR III was very different in its rôle, organisation, equipment and training from the Territorial Army. It is essentially a home defence force.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 16th January that as part of the cuts in public expenditure home defence was to be reduced to a care and maintenance basis, producing a saving of about £14 million in 1968–69 and £20 million in 1969–70 and subsequent years. This involved T & AVR III, as well as the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has responsibility for home defence, explained very fully and clearly in the debate on civil defence on 29th February why the Government decided to reduce the level of home defence. As he said, it is a question of what should be the proper level of preparation in our present circumstances. In the view of the Government, the likelihood of nuclear attack on this country has diminished over the years. It has not, of course, disappeared. In the present state of the world, it would be foolish to suppose


that it would. But the risk is now small enough for the Government to be able to cut expenditure on home defence substantially as part of the broad comprehensive measures aimed at national economic recovery.
As hon. Members will know, my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration announced on 24th January that we were discussing the disbandment of T & AVR III with the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations. The object of the discussions has been to assess fully the concept of T & AVR III on a care and maintenance basis and, in particular, to see how much in the way of special skills and physical assets could be preserved al minimum cost. I am sorry that it is too early for me to give a full report of our talks.
I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the enthusiasm, keenness and spirit of service to the nation which one meets everywhere in T & AVR III. It is a force embodying a volunteer spirit which has so often stood this country in good stead in times of crisis. I should like to emphasise that there is still plenty of opportunity for voluntary military and similar service in Britain today. In the T & AVR II for example, there is still room for recruits. I realise that some people are deterred from joining the Volunteers because of the call-out liability involved, but I can say that although this liability is real it is not onerous. I should like to repeat what has frequently been said before, that this liability is quite different from the Ever-Ready liability, and I hope that hon. Members who have influence in these matters will persuade young men to join the Volunteers. There is also, of course, in the cadets, and youth movement, plenty of scope for service for people who have the talents for that.
Neither the rundown of the home or civil defence services, nor the lack of a vast citizen army on the lines of the old Territorial Army, is going to leave this country naked and defenceless as the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to imply. It remains an essential part of the Government's defence policy that there should be both Regular and Volunteer Reserves available to reinforce the Regular Army when required. It is not necessary or practicable to maintain in

peace time the full war establishment which our forces in Germany would require to carry out their N.A.T.O. commitments. This means that we must have both Regular and Volunteer reservists within a suitable framework and organisation who can provide the individuals and the units that would be needed to make our contribution to N.A.T.O. fully effective.
As the House knows—we have had discussions about this earlier today—it is now accepted that N.A.T.O. strategy should be based on those forces which member countries are prepared to provide. We must be absolutely clear that that there is no prospect of member countries providing sufficient conventional forces to enable N.A.T.O. to fight a non-nuclear war lasting a matter of several weeks let alone months against a major Soviet aggression. If we should be faced with the tragedy of a war in Europe the rôle of N.A.T.O.'s conventional forces would be to hold the position for as long as they could in order to give as much time as possible for any decision on the use of nuclear weapons to be taken—and for talk.
It is obvious that in this situation strong and well equipped conventional forces would be required from us as a contribution to N.A.T.O., and we should expect to be able in time of political tension to call up trained volunteer reservists and move them to Germany as reinforcements but it is also obvious that we should not, as we did in the two World Wars, have again a period of months during which we could, using a nucleus of volunteer reservists as a basis for expansion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—raise a mass army organised to fight in its own military formations of the kind envisaged by Lord Haldane.
Hon. Members opposite who argue this is what we should do have some serious charges to answer. The first charge is that by hedging their bets and making some contingency plan for a long drawn out conventional war in Europe they would be undermining the basis on which the strategy of N.A.T.O. itself is constructed. We may all pray that we shall never be faced with the terrible prospect of a nuclear holocaust, but the fact is that deterrence by the use of nuclear weapons, with appropriate levels of escalation in the conflict, is at


the heart of the Western alliance's strategy, and the use of nuclear weapons is an integral part of the Soviet Government's professed philosophy, too. A deterrent is credible only so long as the people one wishes to deter believe that one is fully resolved to use it. If we make a contingency plan and take the appropriate measures of organisation against the possibility that the resolution to use the deterrent will not be strong enough when the time comes, then the deterrent will cease to be credible.

Mr. Ramsden: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's argument is out of date. He is seeking to blame us. It was his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who told the House on Monday that it must be N.A.T.O.'s object to seek a maximised period of use of conventional forces. I, personally, heard that statement with relief. I believe the House and the country heard it with relief, as the acceptance of our moving on to a more realistic, safer, view of N.A.T.O. strategy. The hon. Gentleman should not blame us for accepting that and wishing to model our forces consequently.

Mr. Boyden: That is exactly the result of what I have been describing. That is exactly what our policy does do. As the right hon. Gentleman was talking I actually put down that that was maximising the conventional forces.
The second charge against hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that when they were in office, during their 13 years, they did very little to provide the equipment for the citizen army they are talking about now to do its job. The policy which they followed of retaining a large Territorial Army establishment greatly above the recruited strength carried with it a heavy price in manpower and money. It had top heavy, unnecessary headquarters, and meant providing heavy equipment, tanks and guns for units of the Royal Armoured Corps and the Royal Artillery, which could not in any conceivable circumstances have been required, and it meant maintaining a large number of other teeth arm units when the main need was for supporting logistic units.

Mr. Ramsden: Are there any reservists for the armoured regiments, other than Regular soldiers, being trained anywhere

in this country at the moment, and, if so, could the hon. Gentleman tell us where?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Regular Army reservists—

Mr. Ramsden: No.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Boyden: In any case, when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about their citizen army, they did not provide either the equipment or the money to make it credible, or the money to make it work. It was even more dangerous that, by continuing for many years to organise the Territorial Army as a separate entity in its own right and treating it as a framework on which general preparations for war might have been made, they were diverting resources, some of which could have been used for training and equipping units needed for reinforcing the Regular Army.
Training and equipment are highly desirable, but what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing in raising all these questions is they are taking out an insurance premium for something they cannot cover. They not only want a householder's insurance policy to cover burglary, fire, and weather, but they want to cover divorce and remarriage as well.
For our part, we are fully resolved not to fall into the same trap of trying to do too much with inadequate re sources. Just as our future defence policy is to be concentrated on Europe, so we shall ensure that the Army reserves available to support the Regular Army are properly organised, trained and equipped for their European rôle.
If extra money were to be provided for reserve forces on the lines which hon. and right hon. Members opposite suggest they should tell us at whose expense it is to be. Is it to come from the Regular Army? Are there to be cuts in the Regular Army? Is it to come out of the social services? I can remember the days when Civil Service salaries were cut as a contribution to dealing with that sort of situation and so were the unemployed. I can remember not so very long ago when one of my hon. Friends—now a right hon. Friend—introduced a redundancy payments scheme for unemployed workers, and that was rejected


by the party opposite and never considered. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when he was talking about cuts, dealing with the economic situation, criticised military cuts for being too distant. Here is a cut which will make an immediate saving of £2½ million or so, and a continuing saving.
The Government's policy on the Army Reserves is sensible and coherent. It is consistent with the realities of today. It does not go back to the 1940s and 1950s, when circumstances were utterly different from now. Confidently, I ask the House to reject the Motion.

5.50 p.m.

Sir Richard Glyn: I begin by repudiating entirely one rather important statement by the Government spokesman which, in my view, is wholly inaccurate. He said that the Territorial Army, as it was a few years ago, could not act as the framework for expansion for war because it did not have the equipment. I heard that statement with astonishment, and I speak with a little experience, because I served in the Territorial Army both before and after the last war, until about eight years ago. When it expanded before the war, my regiment was cut in half and made into two. The half in which I was left had to produce a cadre and, for my sins, I was appointed to command it. Our equipment was negligible.
We were gunners, and we had flags to represent anti-tank guns. The guns with which we were at first supplied had mysterious little screw-holes in them, and it took me some weeks to discover what they were. The guns had been taken out of a military museum and, shortly before, they had borne plates with the letters "D.P." on them, meaning that they were for drill purposes only. The plates having been removed, the guns were then issued to my cadre. This was after the war started. That was the situation in 1939, and I hope that no hon. Gentleman opposite will try to make political capital out of it, because I remember the pre-war Government being faced with a censure Motion alleging that they were rearming too quickly. That was what hon. Gentlemen opposite thought before the war.
We had no combat clothes, and no boots. The quickly doubled Territorial

units were without a vestige of camping equipment. We were moved out into camps with rotten old tents, no floorboards and no palliasses. I think that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his statement that the Territorial Army could not have been expanded in 1964 because it had not the equipment. It managed to expand in shocking circumstances in 1938 and 1939, not only doubling in size but increasing yet again.

Mr. Boyden: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Territorial Army's capability of expansion. In 1941, I was in charge of 250 pikes to defend an R.A.F. station against the possibility of an enemy landing on the East Coast.

Sir Richard Glyn: In fairness, the Regular Army was given pikes in 1939 and 1940, too. Some of us went down to try to defend Kent and took over pikes when we arrived there. However, the Territorial Army was not armed with pikes in 1964 when, according to the hon. Gentleman, it could not be expanded because it did not have proper equipment. It had very much more modern and suitable weapons, some of which could be valid in warfare today. The 25-pounder is still a very fine gun. In certain conditions, many people like it much better than any projected replacement.
The Government's plan for the next war is sure to be wrong, because every Government plan for every war has always been wrong. Whatever the experts say will happen never does happen. In 1938–39, all the experts were sure that gas would be the crucial weapon. If anyone had wanted to bet against gas being used in a future war, he would have obtained very long odds. However, no side ever used gas, and every expert's opinion was vitiated as a result.
How can we know what form the next war will take? We have no notion. All that we have are estimates and opinions. What sort of war and what sort of Reserves have the Government in mind? Are they thinking of a short conventional war? Are they planning for a long conventional war, in which case conventional Reserves will be relevant? Or are they planning for a nuclear war, in which case the third-echelon work for which the Territorial Army was fully trained will be of the utmost importance?
The Government can hardly be planning for a short conventional war. No one in N.A.T.O. and no one in the Government can believe that N.A.T.O. would quickly defeat Russia by conventional means. If they are planning for a short conventional war, they are planning for a conventional defeat of N.A.T.O., because that is the only form of short conventional war that it is possible to envisage. If they are not planning for such a defeat, they must be planning for a long conventional war, in which case conventional Reserves will be extremely relevant. Alternatively, they are planning for a nuclear war, which we all hope we shall be spared, though it has been said that tactical nuclear weapons would be required at an early date if N.A.T.O. had a general engagement on the Continent.
If there were to be one or more nuclear strikes on these islands, according to a statement two years ago by the Secretary of State for Defence, the relevant fact would be the radius of total destruction of a megaton bomb. I accept that. A little pamphlet which was issued to those of us doing third echelon work refers expressly to this point. It says that, outside the radius of total destruction, there would be a further radius the width of which would depend on the size of the bomb but which would be a mile or two in depth, in which the fatal casualties would be much smaller. They might be as low as 5 per cent. However, there would be a further 10 per cent. badly injured, and there might be as many as 35 per cent. of the population who would be trapped by falling masonry or in some other way. It was that 35 per cent. of the local population whom the Territorial Army was fully equipped to rescue by virtue of its training in third echelon work.
If the Territorial Army is not there to rescue 35 per cent. of the population of a proportion of a big city, who is to do it? I do not say that the Regular Army cannot be trained in this work, but not many of its units have been. In any event, if the Regular Army is to be used for this work, what units are we to depend on to carry out our N.A.T.O. rôle abroad? As I understand it, the reductions planned in our Regular Army will leave only a very limited number of brigades. We used to have fourteen, or fifteen with the Gurkhas. Perhaps it

is outside the ambit of this debate to speculate on how much smaller it will become, but, assuming that we have no Home Guard, no Civil Defence and no Territorial Army, we have to consider these islands in the context of a European war in which they may be the target for an attack by nuclear strike, by raid, seaborne or otherwise, by saboteurs, or even by battalion groups or larger formations.
With Russia having rather more than 300 submarines in commission, it will not be easy for the Royal Navy to prevent small seaborne landings. Who is to defend our country from small seaborne landings of that type? Who is to defend the vulnerable points? It must be remembered that several thousand of them were guarded day and night in the last war, some by the Home Guard, which no longer exists, and some by the Territorial Army, which will no longer exist if the hon. Gentleman has his way.
I remember a senior officer, who had been in charge of some of these, saying in a previous defence debate that three brigades were required to guard vulnerable points in the London area alone. In the whole of this island it could not be less than five or six brigades. Would they be Regular soldiers? If the Territorial Army is no longer available, who else could do it? How many brigades are to be available for third echelon work in case of a nuclear strike and to repel any possible landing either by sea or by air of saboteurs or larger armed bodies?
It is no use hon. Gentlemen saying that we have thousands and thousands of troops in this country. Of course we have. They fall into two classes. The majority are administrative troops at various installations who are not in units, let alone formations. We cannot send 300 cooks to attack a company of paratroopers. Most cooks have not used their rifles very often and they have had little or no tactical training. Who is to take charge of this task force and what organisation and formation will we improvise to command it?
At present we have a number of units stationed in this country. These units for the most part are enjoying a spell of home service, alternating with service overseas. I suppose that we will still keep a brigade


group plus in Hong Kong, and they will have to alternate. It may be that some of our forces in Germany will alternate. These alternating units may be here today, but if we have a crisis and pressures building up to the possibility of a European conventional war they will be needed overseas.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman explain in some detail how the Territorial Army can help in Hong Kong?

Sir Richard Glyn: The hon. Gentleman, who knows so much about Scotland, is not following me. I said that there would be Regular units in this country alternating with other Regular units in Hong Kong. The Territorial Army, as it used to be, could well have served in Hong Kong and, for all I know, did. However, there is no question of it doing so now, especially if the Government's plan goes through and there are no Territorial units left. I am talking about the Regular units in Hong Kong which will alternate. Although there may be a number of Regular units in this country now, if pressures built up towards the possibility of a conventional European war, almost all these units would be required on the Continent. We would be under tremendous pressure to provide increasing numbers of brigade groups for N.A.T.O.
How many brigades do the Government see us keeping in this country for the defence of Britain, for the rescue of our citizens who may be trapped on the edge of a nuclear holocaust, for the defence of our vulnerable points, of which so many hundreds had to be defended by day and by night in the last war and would still be vulnerable in another prolonged conventional war, and how many would we have for counter attack rôles in case of landings by sea or by air by saboteurs or larger bodies? How many brigades of regular units would be reserved for this purpose? We had the equivalent of six brigades to defend vulnerable points alone in the last war. Unless the Government can see at least ten Regular brigade groups mobilised in this country, these tasks cannot be carried out, because administrative troops are no good for these purposes, and the population of Britain will be exposed to these dangers, the worst perhaps being trapped

in fallen masonry with no trained rescuers available.
These are the facts of war. We pray that there will not be a war, but the whole of the defence of any nation is based on the fear or risk that there might be one. If a war was to start these horrors might overtake us. What are the Government's plans for meeting them?
We need a citizen army like the old Territorial Army, though perhaps not so big—size is a matter of argument—the equivalent of ten brigade groups would be a good basis. This army could carry out the third echelon rôle, for which they would be fully trained, and other home defence rôles for which they are eminently suitable with the weapons that they had. This force, if brought back into being, as it was a few years ago, would release the equivalent of ten brigade groups of Regular units for service overseas. The cost of ten brigade groups is many times the cost of their equivalent in a Territorial Army.
The question was asked whether they were a credible alternative. Our Territorial Army was recognised throughout N.A.T.O. as the best and least expensive Reserve army in N.A.T.O. On at least one occasion a territorial battery managed to take part in training in Germany and in N.A.T.O. exercises. I am told that the Territorial battery which took part in a N.A.T.O. exercise was of such high standard that many of the N.A.T.O. observers found it difficult to believe that they were not Regulars. That was the position in 1964.
I plead with the Government to seriously reconsider this matter, particularly the plight of the T & AVR III, whose rôle now depends on the annual vote of a Civil Department. This cannot be right.
The hon. Gentleman praised their spirit. I can endorse what he said on this point. My own regiment, the Queen's Own Dorset Yeomanry, was formed nearly 200 years ago. The fourth most senior Yeomanry Regiment, it was set up on the basis that the Government should be put to no expense. They served for nothing to defend their country.
I have a letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Lindsay Kerr, formerly Second in Command of the Queen's Own Dorset Yeomanry, now the Commanding Officer of


The Dorset Territorials, T & AVR III, in which he says:
I must confirm our willingness and preparedness to serve under a completely voluntary basis.
They will continue to serve for nothing on condition that they may continue to have the use of their present equipment and T.A. centres which they regard as most important. They regard the latter as crucial if it ever became necessary to reform the regiment with a view to expanding the Army for a conventional war.
If we ever have to expand our army again it could only properly be done through the Territorials. If we had no Territorials, the Regular Army would have to undergo what we Territorials underwent in 1938–39. Regiments would have to be split, which would mean them being incapable of fighting for a long time. Each half would have to take a number of untrained men or else draw up a cadre which again would have to be topped up with a great number of untrained men. This would weaken the regiment and the cadre would be unable to fight for some long time. Warfare is more difficult and the tactics more complicated than in 1939, so it would be more difficult to bring about this increase now than it was in 1939, and it was difficult enough then. I urge the Government to reconsider this matter now, and particularly to bear in mind the offer from the Dorset Territorials, which I am sure is typical of the spirit of all Territorials, to serve without remuneration provided they can use their equipment and drill halls. I ask the Government not to throw away such a magnificent civic spirit and such loyalty. I ask them, in the interests of the country as a whole, to think again.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: While listening to the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn), I came to the conclusion that apparently the Government were abolishing the Territorial Army altogether. This is not entirely true. The issue under discussion is the future of T & AVR III. The other two parts of the Territorial Army will remain in existence. T & AVR I and II have a strength of about 50,000.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: The figure is actually 38,000.

Mr. Heffer: I am taking the figures from this document. This is a considerable number of troops, and I think we ought to get the matter into perspective.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dorset, North. If the Government were abolishing the Territorial Army completely and no alternative was being put forward, with the result that we were depleting the defence of this country, I would be the first to speak out against the proposal. I am not a pacifist. I believe that the defence of our shores is essential. I do not believe that we should eliminate our army altogether, and then hope for the best. This is a disastrous policy for anyone to pursue. I believe that we must have an army, that we must defend our shores, and I further believe that in modern circumstances the Government's proposals are adequate for our defence.
If no alternatives were being presented, I could not support such a policy, but I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite are living in the past. They have not caught up with the realities of the situation. They have not understood precisely why we are getting rid of our overseas bases, renegotiating our commitments, and bringing our troops back from overseas, particularly from east of Suez. Many of these troops will be stationed here. Despite the cuts which will become applicable in two and a half years' time, our estimates this year are increasing precisely because a considerable sum of money will be needed to rehouse these troops here.
Is it suggested that we should have these extra troops here in addition to the Territorial Army? Such a proposal is absolutely unnecessary. I do not believe that we are in a position to afford the continuation of T & AVR III, and at the same time get rid of our overseas commitments and bring our troops back. I do not believe that we can afford unnecessarily to increase our expenditure at the moment. We know that the present set-up has caused immense economic problems for us.

Sir T. Beamish: In the event of it being necessary, because of an emergency in Europe, to bring B.A.O.R. up to full establishment, what military manpower does the hon. Gentleman envisage being available here for home defence and duties in aid of the civil power?

Mr. Heffer: I shall come to that in a moment. I shall answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question when dealing with the kind of war that is likely to occur in the future.

Sir T. Beamish: What is the answer to my question?

Mr. Heffer: I am coming to it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had a distinguished military career.

Sir T. Beamish: Undistinguished.

Mr. Heffer: I understood it was a very distinguished one, but I leave it there. I am sure he will agree that the nature of any future war is mere conjecture on our part. It may take one of two forms. It may be a nuclear war, or it may be a conventional one. I believe that a large-scale conventional war involving the major countries of the world is out. I think we can say that such an eventuality does not stand up to the realities of the situation. Certainly there could be a conventional war of the type that we have seen in Vietnam, where people are fighting for national independence and using guerrilla tactics to defeat an occupying power. But when it comes to a war between major powers, or even between large blocks, I think we can safely assume that it will be a nuclear war, because one side will want a quick strike to destroy the other at the earliest possible moment, without getting involved in any long-term struggle.
If one accepts that premise, it is clear that it is unnecessary to have the type of home-based Territorial Army units which have been envisaged in the past. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may not accept that proposition, but I think that the Government are right in arguing that we do not need to continue with this branch of the Territorial Army.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) made one of his usual witty and powerful speeches. He made a number of points with which I did not agree, but I agreed with his opinion that we ought to consider bringing home our 50,000 troops now stationed in Germany. This is essential for our economy. It will do no harm to the defence of this country, and as long as we are part of the N.A.T.O. set-up it will do no harm to that organisation

either, because we can quickly transport these troops to the Continent if they are required there. If these troops are stationed here, there will be no need to continue the Territorial Army as we have understood it in the past.
There is, however, something much more important which needs to be done. When we are discussing the future of the Territorial Army, and the question of any future war, we must do so in the context of the situation in Europe at the moment. The N.A.T.O. countries have been discussed, and so have the Warsaw Pact countries. The reality of the situation is that there is a great deal of discontent, not only in N.A.T.O. about the future structure of the organisation, but in the Warsaw Pact countries as well. Already, Rumania is not prepared to renew its Warsaw Pact agreement with the Russians without a new clause, which means that they will not be automatically involved in any conflict in which the Russians take part. On our side, the French have their view of N.A.T.O. One important way to ensure that we never need the Territorial Army again is to take positive initiatives for disengagement in Europe, and to try to arrange a conference leading to a European security pact.
It is sad that we should be talking about a future war. We must do so, because we have to protect the interests of the country, but discussion about securing peace for all time would be more constructive. If that could be guaranteed, we should not need the Territorial Army or any other army—

Sir Richard Glyn: I have here the figures of the Institute of Strategic Studies. Perhaps it would put the hon. Gentleman's argument in perspective if I told him that, although Rumania might drop out of the Warsaw Pact, she has only 9 divisions and Russia has 140.

Mr. Heffer: I am not suggesting that Rumania makes a large contribution, but there is discontent, which is not confined to Rumania. In today's Guardian, Victor Zorza describes the start of the same kind of argument in Czechoslovakia. All Eastern Europe is beginning to reassess its poition, which is important for our attitudes and future military rôle.
I should like to go a little wider than this debate, but I should have to be here


until about two o'clock in the morning to raise all the issues—

Mr. Emus Hughes: Only until 12 o'clock.

Mr. Heffer: Well, I would not want to be here discussing these matters until 12 o'clock—

Mr. Hughes: Why not? It is the future of the country.

Mr. Heffer: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are rightly concerned about the defence of our country. Anyone who is not concerned has no right in the House. Pacificists have a right, because they think that the best defence is to have no army at all, so we are all concerned with our country's defence. We must defend our country and we need an army to do it. But we do not need to continue the Territorial Army, a concept which was very much a product of the First World War and played its part in the Second, but has no part in the modern context.
If anyone says that I know nothing about the T.A., I would point out that my father was a sergeant in the Terri-trial Army, having served in the First World War in the Regular Army. I was brought up in a T.A. tradition. My mother was sometimes annoyed about this, because my father spent some time in the T.A. bar, which she did not like. She thought that he would have been better occupied digging the garden. I wonder how accurately hon. Members opposite reflect the views of those who regard the T.A. as an escape from home duties urged upon them by their wives. There is some element of this in any march down Whitehall by T.A. units.
If I thought that we could put the country at risk I would oppose the Government, but I do not think that we would. The Government's arguments are sound, that bringing troops home from abroad—particularly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington said yesterday, from Germany—means that there would be no need of the past concept of a Territorial Army, especially since any future war is much more likely to be a nuclear war, with wholesale destruction, which would make a territorial army unnecessary and irrelevant.

6.27 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) will forgive me if I do not follow his interesting speculations on the possible course of a future war. If history has shown us anything, it is that soldiers and politicians suffer from a strange inability to foresee the future. My kindly-meant advice to the Government, therefore, is to think twice before discarding or neglecting any possible insurance or guarantee against the unforeseen. And if ever there were a cheap and effective insurance against the unforeseen it is, at £3 million a year, the T & AVR III. Moreover, present trends suggest that things are likely to become more and more unforeseen as time goes on.
But, in any case, after floods or gales, as recently seen in Scotland, or in the aftermath of a nuclear war or in numerous other situations, there is always likely to be a considerable rôle for a body of trained and disciplined men with local knowledge and local connections. And nowadays the T & AVR III has become all the more necessary because of the virtual liquidation of Civil Defence and the effects of Regular Army cuts on the strength of the Regular reserves. Therefore, instead of disbanding it, the Government should be strengthening and expanding it, and improving its armament and equipment.
As Under-Secretary of State for War, I saw a lot of the Territorial Army and was immensely impressed with the devotion, keenness and enthusiasm which prevailed in it, something which it had taken a great many years to build up. Now in the units which compose the T & AVR III all this is to be destroyed, not on military or even on convincing financial grounds, because £3 million is not nowadays an enormous sum—but in the main for political reasons and in particular as a sop to what one might call the lunatic fringe of the Government's supporters, the supporters of a panic-stricken and incompetent Administration.
I myself have been much struck by the fierce and genuine indignation which the Government proposal to disband the T & AVR III has aroused in my constituency. I do not know whether the


hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has had the same experience.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: None at all.

Sir F. Maclean: In North Ayrshire and Bute I have had a great volume of angry letters, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that these have not been simply identical circulars, which people have been put up to write. They have clearly been individually composed and are full of feeling.
And no wonder. The Ayrshire Yeomanry, to which most of these constituents belong, is the senior Yeomanry Regiment in Scotland. Its history dates back nearly two centuries. It has had an extremely distinguished record in peace and war and it now leads all other Scottish T & AVR III units in strength. It actually stands at 90 per cent. of establishment, which is a remarkable record for a Territorial Army unit. What is more, this has been achieved in spite of the fact that under last year's so-called reorganisation, it had nearly all its vehicles, weapons and equipment as a reconnaissance regiment taken away and it has been reduced to one 30-year-old ·303 rifle per man, five Land Rovers and one W.T. set for the entire unit.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the volume of correspondence which he has received. The impression is being put about that the Scots are complaining in a big way against these measures. I have received only one letter of complaint. Although the hon. Gentleman says that he has received a large volume of letters, would he say how many letters he has received?

Sir F. Maclean: Dozens. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's constituents, like those of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, do not think that it is worth writing to him.
By private enterprise and initiative, for which they are famous, the members of the Ayrshire Yeomanry have managed to supplement their equipment and are not now as badly equipped as they would have been had they depended entirely on the Government as their source of supply.
Let me give another example of their keenness—and I believe that this applies to other units—in spite of the treatment

they have had, they are prepared to a man to continue to serve without pay. This is the spirit which the Government are deliberately seeking to destroy; and let them remember that once destroyed it will not be so easy to build it up again.
By a happy coincidence the Prime Minister is shortly to visit Ayr where this regiment has its headquarters. I am sure that he will get from the men of the Ayrshire Yeomanry the welcome he deserves.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If my constituents do not think it worth writing to me on this issue, when they know that I disagree, they nevertheless think it worth writing to me on a great many other subjects about which they wish to complain and about which they are likely to get even less change. I simply deny that there is any volume of feeling, certainly in the east of Scotland, on this subject, and I challenge the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), and others who have been vocal in the Press, about the volume of support that they have received.

Mr. James Davidson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the east of Scotland. I trust that he will agree that he speaks for only the part he knows.

Mr. Dalyell: I certainly do. I must be equally frank in replying to the remark of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire about the lunatic fringe of the Labour Party because I suppose that I qualify for membership of it on this issue.

Sir F. Maclean: I would define the lunatic fringe of the Labour Party by suggesting that it is comprised of those hon. Members who, for reasons which no doubt seem perfectly valid to them, are pressing the Government very hard indeed—even to the point of voting against them—to accept that the present cuts are inadequate; and those are the hon. Members to whom the Goverment presumably occasionally throw a sop.

Mr. Dalyell: People like me say that we must have a rational defence policy and, in my remarks, I speak frankly on the basis of being a "Fortress Britain" man who does not want his country to meddle in anything defence-wise overseas


other than in a United Nations capacity, in which I believe that the British part should be a reasonably small one.
I assure the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) that my hon. Friends who hold this view do not want to be glib about what happened in the 1930s. In the situation of the rise of Hitler, many of us would have shared the view of the hon. Gentleman. However, and with real respect to those who fought in the Second World War, analogies of this kind are misleading in the current position. We part company with the hon. Gentleman and those who express similar views when they talk in terms of releasing 10 brigades of troops for service overseas. I cannot imagine a situation in which I could support any action which would involve 10 British brigades being sent overseas. Perhaps in this debate we must come back to the basic assumptions from which we speak, for those assumptions must be related to an overall defence strategy, in the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) argued yesterday.
The hon. Member for Dorset, North has the notion that the Territorial Army could be the organisation to rescue 35 per cent. of the population who, he said, would be in a trapped condition in any sort of nuclear holocaust. But is the Territorial Army the right organisation to prepare for this eventuality? I would have thought that this was a job more appropriate for those with fire-service and police training.

Sir Richard Glyn: I did not say that they were the only people who could do the job. I said that they were trained to do it. The figure of 35 per cent. related to the area around the bombs, outside the zone of total destruction. Presumably everyone within that area would be killed. I pointed out that the Territorial Army was fully trained in rescue work for this purpose and that there would now be no organisation in Britain trained to do this job. One or two Regular regiments have been trained, but I believe not many. The police have worked regularly with members of the Territorial Army in, for example, joint exercises. Neither the police nor fire brigades are capable of handling these matters without the assistance of a num

ber of trained units, particularly with the assistance of wireless signallers, which the Territorial Army could provide.

Mr. Dalyell: It was an absolutely serious point of the hon. Member's. It could be argued that the fire service should be extended for this sort of work, and particularly the auxiliary fire service, but this is a serious matter of judgment.
As I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), he argued that we had to continue reserve forces of this sort in order to act as the foundation for larger armies, and to act as a link. In what circumstances are these larger armies to be used, given that a time scale now operates in 1968 which certainly did not operate in 1948, let alone 1938? It is on the question of the time scale for preparation that there seems to be a fairly deep division between the parties.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington yesterday spoke in terms of relating all this to one's conception of a future war; how we envisage it, and in what context. If the House of Commons was criticised in a leader in The Times this morning it was, perhaps, with some justice, because we should be paying more detailed attention to possible eventualities rather than letting ourselves roam on the generalities to which we are far too accustomed.
I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Harrogate to ask what he meant by a "credible" force. I am not trying to score a debating point here. I listened very carefully to what he said, but with the best will in the world I am still not clear for what eventuality the Opposition Front Bench thinks this force should be used. Perhaps one should not be too dogmatic about a future war, and its possible nature, but I should have thought that one of our best deterrents is the difficulty that any Power that attacked us would have in occupying the country. There is a danger of ribaldry in likening that potential situation too much to the situation in Vietnam, which is different, but I seriously argue that, if there are to be forces of a reserve nature, they should be trained not as the basis of Regular units, but in the techniques of insurgency.
That argument arises from the perfectly serious belief that in the modern world the real deterrent is the threat of


insurgency that any aggressor would have to face when meeting a determined people—and the British are a determined people in such circumstances. It may be thought when I say that that here is a man who thinks a situation in which we would be conquered. Again, I know that by arguing on these lines I am open to a certain amount of laughter and ribaldry, but I should have thought that, if we are to train reserve forces, as good a deterrent as any would be that they should be trained in the techniques of insurgency and sabotage. Any Member of Parliament—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend know that he is following the example of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who led the guerrillas to establish Communism in Yugoslavia? Surely, my hon. Friend does not want to bring in anything to establish Communism in this country.

Mr. Dalyell: No. I am just proposing that what one must concede is a realistic kind of reserve force about which we should be thinking—

Mr. George Younger: The hon. Gentleman is making a very thoughtful speech, and perhaps he will allow me to try to help him. Does he realise that the members of the old Territorial Army prior to 1966 were, and the members of the present T & AVR III to some extent are, trained in exactly the capability of insurgency of which he speaks? Does he not think that a reason for keeping them on?

Mr. Dalyell: I do not think that I could have said that the men of the T.A. are trained in the techniques of sabotage as such. Even if they were, I would think it very dangerous, because people who argue as I do have to be very careful about one thing, and that is whom one trains in these techniques. One has to be highly selective—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend is proving my point. The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire trained the wrong people and, as a result, established Communism.

Mr. Dalyell: I am in danger of being misled into the arguments of particular political persuasions for infiltrating tech

niques, which might lead me into a false position. The serious proposition I make is that insurgency techniques act as a deterrent.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate talked of the problems arising in an alarm situation. There, again, I do not see that the Territorial Army would give the kind of confidence that has been mentioned. There is no evidence at all that the Territorial Army would produce confidence in the civilian population faced with that kind of problem. The right hon. Gentleman's notion that, somehow, the Regular Army has added flexibility and would be distressed if it were denied seems to be a wholly unrealistic and untenable proposition, given at the time scale on which we are now operating.
Another argument from the Opposition Front Bench was that we had to have a Territorial Army in case of brush fire wars. The House may call me a member of the lunatic Left, or what it will, but I maintain that it would be extremely unwise in anything other than a United Nations context for this country ever again to get involved in brush fire wars.
Again, it was argued that the Volunteers should be left because they wished to continue in being. When the Chairman of the Dorset Yeomanry Association, the hon. Member for Dorset, North, reads a letter saying that people are prepared to give their services free, I find it a little hard to refute, but I must ask: how many people will give their services free? I can quite understand that the members of the Dorset Yeomanry would, but I rather doubt whether very many of those in the Territorial Army—

Sir F. Maclean: All the men of the Ayrshire Yeomanry, which is about 90 per cent. up to strength, have so volunteered.

Mr. Dalyell: I think that they have some paragons of virtue in Ayrshire.

Mr. James Allason: I have only one unit in my constituency, but every man in it has so volunteered.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Let us have only one intervention at a time.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I can forestall my hon. Friend my saying that the virtue must all be in North Ayrshire, not in South Ayrshire—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There is a similar organisation in my constituency which is very strong and which gives its services voluntarily. It is the Boys Brigade.

Mr. Dalyell: That brings me to my next question, which is a question to the Minister. He referred to cadet forces. Are we quite certain that the expense that goes on cadet forces is, in fact, worth while? Is it the view of the Ministry of Defence that the cadet forces in our schools should be continued, and if so, why? I am jumping to no conclusions about this, but I think it is at least legitimate to raise the question. Perhaps in the winding up, since the Government themselves raised this subject, there could be a reference to possible costs and also whether in their judgment this is worth while.
I come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). I should like to know more about the Government's notions of support for the technical and logistics side and how this is to be geared into the reserves. As the Government rightly say, Regulars are not self-contained. I think the House of Commons ought to know a little more about the plans for technical and logistic support.
So far, I have been perhaps a little destructive. Unless we are pacifists—and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) I am not a pacifist—there is a certain obligation on all of us who take these minority views to be clear about the career interests of Servicemen, which would remain if we had our way, in the very much smaller forces which this country would have. I quite appreciate the argument of senior officers that ever since 1945 until now the British Army, Navy and Air Force have had certain tasks to perform, be it in Cyprus, Guyana, Aden or Malaysia. I also understand that there are many who think that perhaps never again will a Labour Government embark unilaterally on that kind of adventure—I would say from my point of view, catastrophic adventure. Not only do they think a Labour Government would not embark on that kind

of adventure, but I think a great many are pretty sure that a Conservative Government would be reluctant so to do.
I think this is the truth of the situation. Suppose the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) became Minister of Defence. It is not for me to say whether he will or not. In this kind of situation there is a general view that he as Minister of Defence and his Cabinet colleagues, having had experience of Aden, Borneo, Guyana and other places, would not indulge in this kind of activity. Therefore, we are faced with an exertmely difficult problem. It is how to fulfil the legitimate career expectations of those in the Services.
I stand here genuinely concerned—and I am not going to give way on this—about the morale and recruitment and similar problems of the Services in the future along the lines I would wish to see. One has to think very carefully about how one can foster recruitment and legitimate career expectations. I welcome the attention that the Government have given to the problem of the characteristic lengths of service. I think it quite right to encourage the Government and I encourage my right hon. Friend in the ideas he has been putting forward to gear those leaving the Services at 30, 35 or 40 to positions in industrial life. From the so-called "lunatic fringe" it may be a rather odd remark, but I think there are certain qualities in the Services which are useful to industry especially in the technical arms.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to the Motion on the Order Paper. I wonder if he would help me.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker The Motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West ends with the words:
which will provide the opportunity of a military training to all who are willing to volunteer.
In the light of this, I think that we in this House of Commons are under an obligation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. This is concerned with the Territorial Army.

Mr. Dalyell: I will relate it in this way. If we are to have a viable force, we have to put forward constructive ideas as to how this viable force is to be kept going. I spent the first part of my speech being in a sense destructive of the ideas of of other people—to a certain extent of the Opposition and to a lesser extent of the Government Front Bench. People who are destructive and, as I say, not pacifist—and I am not a pacifist—have a certain obligation, politicians especially, to be clear as to what they themselves would do. I think that the ideas that have been put forward by the present General Officer Commanding Scottish Command, Sir Derek Lang, and others, for the civilian use of the forces are extremely relevant to the discussion today because, once Regulars have served in the sort of Army I and some of my hon. Friends would like 'o see, they can form a corps of reserve forces.
The discussion today is on the issue of reserve forces in general rather than any particular formation of the Territorial Army as we have known it. I draw the attention of the House to precisely what is happening in Scotland at present because I think it has considerable relevance to the future nature of the reserve forces. The first difficulty is that those who want to use the forces for civilian occupations, either at home or abroad, have to recognise that men do not join the Army simply to build roads or to help with the hay in the Scottish Highlands. That has to be recognised.
However, there are many situations in this country where a positive response is required and where the Services would not have the feeling that they are making work to keep them occupied. Perhaps the contrast should not be drawn between soldiering in Aden and Borneo and doing a civilian task in Britain but between doing a constructive civilian task in Britain and "square bashing" in Aldershot, Catterick or Fort George.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not relating his remarks to the need or the lack of need for a Territorial Army, which is the Motion.

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are obviously unhappy about my pursuing this line of thought for the civilian use

of the forces. Of course, I accept your ruling and I shall not seek to pursue that line.
I return to matters which definitely concern the Territorial Army. There is the issue of drill halls. I would not be for taking away a drill hall from the existing T.A. for no reason at all, but I should have thought that many of these facilities are extremely useful to the development of civilian organisations. If people who have formerly taken part in T.A. activities like to give their services to youth groups in these drill halls, I and some of my hon. Friends would be the better pleased. A number of Parliamentary Questions have been put to the Secretary of State for Defence on this issue. Sporting organisations—I am President of the Scottish Amateur Basketball Association—have concrete plans for the use of T.A. facilities. Let us expand these facilities and exploit the energies and enthusiasm of those who have formerly given their work to the Territorial Army. For those who like the camaraderie of the Territorial Army—and I do not sneer at them—there is a perfectly practical transfer to useful civil activity.
Second, I am a supporter of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on his question of linking the Services and those who have been Regulars, whether attached to the T.A. or not, with the police. That is a practical suggestion which should be energetically pursued by the Ministry.
I shall not go into ramifications too far, but I should like to raise the question of the future of the regimental system. Do the Government think, given our new defence needs, that the regimental system is ideal for the conditions of the late 1960s? That question requires fairly careful thought. Of course, we want to take advantage of traditional loyalties, but it is by no means self-evident that the regimental system is the way in which that should be done.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The future of the regimental system does not come within the scope of the Motion. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Dalyell: Other hon. Members can talk about the Vicar of Bray and so on, and the Leader of the Opposition can take us to Vietnam and wander all round


during the defence debates. But I notice that the Chair is regarding me with an eagle eye, perhaps justifiably, and therefore I shall not seek to dispute your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will forgive me if I do not deal with any of his points, because many other hon. Members wish to speak and he spoke for longer than his Front Bench spokesman in a debate in which there is little time.
We still have an Army with a worldwide rôle, which it has been used to having, but after five Defence Reviews in two years it faces a reorganisation involving tremendous change. There is to be one main rôle for the Army in the future—to prepare to fight a war which is never likely to take place and which, if by some mischance it happened, we should undoubtedly lose because all sides would lose it. The Government seem to have forgotten the Army's world-wide rôle completely. There is a little talk about retaining a general capability, but a general capability is what the Army has customarily had all the time. What is happening in B.A.O.R., with its 57,000 troops is only a fraction of what is the forces rôle.
The Government seem to have a firm determination to pay no attention to what has happened in the past. They wish to learn nothing because they have their own airy-fairy ideas about the future, the main feature of which is, "Let us get out of east of Suez as soon as possible." Against that background we must consider the reserves required to support the Army. They consist of the Regular Army Reserve, the S.A.V.R. and the Territorial Army. Some of them are tailor-made for particular contingencies, but a large proportion is just a general availability. Some men can be called up at short notice and fit easily into the Regular Army, with some others moving forward to take their place. There are ultimately some with a lesser capability, but still of very great use.
We must examine the Regular Army commitments before we can consider what reserves we need. The Secretary of State for Defence once again repeated

yesterday that the services in 1964 were seriously over-stretched. I do not accept that. They were stretched, but not seriously over-stretched. His statement implies that they are not over-stretched now. That is a silly boast by a man who does not have a bush fire on his hands at present. He would look pretty foolish if suddenly he had to deal with some of the commitments which we had in 1964 or 1962–63. All those liabilities are still with us, except for Aden.
In 1964 we were fighting a war in Borneo and in Aden, and we had a number of other commitments, including Cyprus. All the services, particularly the Army, were tackling and meeting those commitments in full. We were not short of troops on the ground. Yet that is what is now termed being dangerously over-stretched. The reserves were not called out, with the exception of a small number of "Ever-Readies" who were called to go to Aden rather as an experiment. There was no absolute necessity for them but, it was very interesting to see if the system worked.
Happily, the confrontation is over and therefore the very heavy commitment of the war in Borneo is finished. The other main commitment which is over is Aden, which we have shamefully surrendered to terrorists, the thing which the Prime Minister said he would not do and then did. The remaining commitments are ours to 1971. From the way people have talked it sounded as if all the commitments east of Suez had already been surrendered, and that therefore it was perfectly legitimate to reduce the size of our Forces now. The Government are taking a very great risk—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not yet mentioned the Territorial Army, which is the subject of the Motion.

Mr. Allason: With respect, I have mentioned the reserves, and I think that we must discuss the commitments. I am moving rapidly to the question of the Territorial Army. We have all the commitments for the Army now with the exception of Aden, but despite that the regular Forces are being brought back to this country and the intention is that they shall be substantially disbanded before 1971. The Territorial Army has already been cut in half, and now we


have the intention to cut it by a further one-third.
The Army's reserves will amount to rather less than 100,000 men. There are three countries with rather similar populations to ours not very far away. France has reserves of 500,000, more than five time the size of ours. Germany has 800,000 and Italy has 700,000. I am not saying that we should try to match the size of our reserves to those of those countries, but we should hesitate before we throw away the 15,000 men now in the T & AVR III or its 28,000 establishment. The T & AVR III was never wanted by the Government. It was forced on them, and they accepted it reluctantly. But by their acceptance they admitted that there was a genuine need, for without that they never would have accepted it.
I turn now to discuss the requirement for the T & AVR III. First, there is a need for cross-fertilisation within the Territorial Army. A man cannot join and say that he will always want to be in the "Ever-Readies", the T & AVR I. There will be some occasions when he can accept the greatest liability to call-up. At other times, he will want to revert to the T & AVR II. If, one the other hand, he is in the T & AVR III, there may be times when he will want to increase his liability. He will have a greater interest and want to move up. There is, therefore, the greatest use for the Territorial Army in giving the widest possible base and opportunities for movement.
There are two rôles accepted for the T & AVR III. The first, home defence, has already been well discussed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn). The second is in civil defence. These men are fully trained in first aid and fire fighting. The police reckon that they are of the greatest assistance to them. In any future emergency, the police will face grave difficulty. They are under strength now and fully stretched in times of peace. Crime will not stop in the event of an emergency, so the duties of the police will increase enormously. One of their duties is to provide mobile columns, which means automatically that 30 per cent. of their strength disappears in that event. The Territorial Army could, therefore, be of the greatest help to the police.
I have already told the House that every man in the unit in Hemel Hempstead has volunteered to serve on without pay and without allowances. I am sure that this is in no way unusual but represents no more than the feeling and voluntary spirit which one would expect from the Territorial Army. But the Secretary of State for Defence is deliberately destroying a vital part of our defence forces. He is doing so purely in order to make some cuts in the cost of the forces, certainly not because the forces are not necessary. If they were necessary last year, they are just as necessary this year. He is doing it solely to try to save money. He is taking risks with our country's defence. On these grounds alone, the right hon. Gentleman should resign.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In this debate and in the Division which is to follow I shall be 150 per cent. behind the Government. The Government are trying to save money here, and I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that the wish to save money at a time of national emergency of this kind is to be disregarded. In a few weeks, we shall have the Budget. We shall have to pay for all these things. Throughout my years in the House, I have kept a vigilant eye on these Estimates in order to safeguard the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here tonight, so I am deputising for him. I regard this saving of money as an essential part of our measures of national economy. Hon. and gallant Members opposite are being absolutely irresponsible and not thinking of the nation's affairs when they object so violently to the Government's reappraisal of the Territorial Army.
It has been an interesting discussion, and I shall not try to follow hon. and gallant Members opposite in going out of order. Like many others, I have wondered what rôle the Territorial Army could play in a future national emergency. It is like rehearsing for something which might never come on, and, if it does, will not be like the rehearsal. I understand the point of view of hon. and gallant Members quite well. For many years, I was a member of the Ayr County Council, a county council on which sat all the local retired colonels of the last war, or all


who managed to get in. They were members of the Territorials, and I frequently discussed the affairs of the Territorials with them.
During my rather long career in the House, I have never said a word against the spirit of hon. and gallant Gentlemen who think that it is their duty to join the Territorials. I support the Government because I want them to save money, but I have not the slightest objection to hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite taking part in what exercises they like, provided that they do not ask for money. I like the voluntary spirit. I like the voluntary spirit of the Boy Scouts and the Boys Brigade. If hon. and gallant Members opposite want to enrol in a sort of elderly Boys Brigade or Boy Scouts, if they want to take part in exercises and to retain the old names of Territorial regiments, I do not object in the slightest. I welcome their spirit.
But when they ask me for money, it is a different matter. I am a Member for a Scottish constituency. I object very much to the way in which my colleague from Ayrshire, the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), spoke of "only £2½million". It is a lot of money. It could provide six advance factories in Ayrshire to give work to the unemployed. So I want every penny I can have so that the Government may make better provision for our economic recovery.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire is not here at the moment, though I have no doubt that it will be difficult for him to resist the opportunity to come back when he sees my name on the annunciator. I agree with him in many respects. Although we take opposite views in this debate, we often present a united front. We had a united front on the question of the Ayrshire police last Thursday, and I am sorry that that united front has been broken so soon.
The hon. Gentleman said that no one can foresee the character of a future war. He is 100 per cent. right. I support him in that. He had a distinguished career in Yugoslavia, and he wrote a very readable book about it. His name is regarded almost with reverence in Communist Yugoslavia.
The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that we can never foresee the future. When he was operating with his old friend Tito, he never imagined that what he was doing was establishing Communism in Yugoslavia. When hon. Members say that we must organise for some future war, they had better be careful. They may be training future guerrillas. If the Tories ever return to power, they may be regarded as a vicious Government and hon. Members who are training these Territorials may be training guerrillas for an insurgency force which may try to seize power, as the Communists did in Yugoslavia.
It is therefore essential that, if we are to reorganise the forces, there should be some idea of what they are being organised for and exactly the sort of training they should undergo. I am a tolerant person. If the hon. Member for Bute wants to organise Territorials in the Island of Arran to do guerrilla warfare exercises on Goat Fell or in the mountains there, he has my utmost support and I am prepared to go there as an obsever.
What is likely to be the rôle of the Territorial Army in the next war, if there is one? I recall the speech made by the hon. Member for Bute in the debate on the question of what would be likely to happen in the West of Scotland if a bomb were dropped as a result of the establishment in Scotland of a Polaris submarine base. The hon. Gentleman then argued that one megaton bomb dropped over the centre of Glasgow would destroy everything within a radius of 100 miles. That would eliminate the greater part of industrial Scotland. What rôle could the Ayrshire Yeomanry play in such a situation?
It has been said that there is strong feeling in Scotland about the Government's action. I grant that there is a certain amount of indignation, and quite honest and sincere indignation, among hon. Members opposite, many of whom played a distinguished part in two world wars and who still think in the terms of those wars. When I am told by the hon. Member for Bute that there is any very big volume of public opinion against the Government on this point, I simply remind myself of the facts. It is true that I do not receive many letters from these retired officers, although I know them personally and get on very well with them.


Naturally it is the optimists who write to me, as a few of them do. I believe that they are honestly trying to do something for their country.
The Ayrshire Yeomanry is not quite the flourishing organisation that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire says that it is. It may be in certain residential areas in Bute and in the West of Ayrshire, because that is where the retired officers go to. They do not come to my constituency, because we are largely miners. They naturally drift to the north of Ayrshire. If the hon. Gentleman has received 100 letters that vein, I should be very surprised. I should be very surprised, too, if he received more letters about the Government's action in reducing expenditure on the Territorials than he received about the Abortion Bill. People in my part of the world were far more interested in the Abortion Bill than they were in the abolition of the Territorials.

Sir F. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman says that the Ayrshire Yeomanry is not in a very flourishing state. Surely he will agree that 90 per cent. up to strength is very flourishing indeed for any Territorial unit. I certainly received far more letters on the subject of the proposed disbandment of the T & AVR III than I received about the Abortion Bill.

Mr. Hughes: Hon. Members will no doubt conclude that the hon. Gentleman's is a very curious constituency. A Gallup Poll should be conducted there. The hon. Gentleman speaks in terms of percentages. What does that 90 per cent. represent?

Sir F. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect any unit to be more than 100 per cent. up to establishment. He must know what the "establishment" of a unit is. This is a volunteer organisation. If it gets 90 per cent. of what it is allowed to get, it is not doing badly. A ceiling is put on it. If the hon. Gentleman got 90 per cent. of the votes in his constituency, he would be quite pleased.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I want to know exactly how many are in the Ayrshire Yeomanry at present and what that 90 per cent. represents.

Mr. Younger: May I put the hon. Gentleman out of his agony. The Ayr

shire Yeomanry, after all, to a large extent covers his constituency. I thought that he would have known this. The present strength is approximately 320 all ranks.

Mr. Hughes: There are 320 all ranks to protect Ayrshire against Communism! This enormous Ayrshire Yeomanry, on the direct evidence of someone who is presumably in it, has only 320 all ranks. Presumably all 320 of them wrote letters to the hon. Member for Bute. I therefore submit that there is a certain amount of quite natural and patriotic exaggeration about the strength of the agitation on behalf of the Territorial Army.
If the 320 all ranks want to exercise voluntarily, I do not see any objection to it. But the hon. Member for Bute wants £2½ million throughout the country and says that that is nothing. I say that it is the cost of six advance factories which are needed in his constituency and in mine.
I could go further. The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire spoke about Ayr. What has happened there? How many of the 320 are in Ayr? The Churchill Barracks in Ayr have disappeared. I think it is a very good thing that they have. The drill halls in my constituency which used to be used by the Territorials are in very great demand now. I am glad to say that they are in great demand, not by the Territorial Association, but by people who want to establish knitwear factories there and build up industries for ladies underwear. I think it is more useful for the drill halls to be producing goods at present than to be operated on by well-meaning but misguided hon. Members who want to exercise simply for the sake of exercising.
I am very strongly behind the Government and I hope they will not give the Ayrshire Yeomanry one single brass farthing for conducting this activity. If they want to do it voluntarily, let them do so. Many of them have good old military material and they should have a whip round if they want to buy a tank or some other equipment. I shall place no obstacle in the way of that patriotic activity.
I agree that the Territorial Army could do useful work in floods and gales, but


there is nothing to prevent these men making themselves available to be called out for such work.

Sir F. Maclean: They cannot do it if the Territorial Army does not exist.

Mr. Hughes: I am surprised that all this voluntary effort is going to commit suicide because the Government are refusing money. The Government have no objection to their operating as an amateur association like the Boy Scouts or the Boys Brigade.
The other argument is that they are needed as reserves. We even had an amazing argument from an hon. and gallant Member opposite that they might be reserves for the garrison of Hong Kong.

Sir F. Maclean: Nobody said that.

Mr. Hughes: Somebody mentioned Hong Kong. I believe that it was the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn). I would not have tried to introduce the subject of Hong Kong if the possibility had not been mentioned. Hong Kong is a long way from the Ayrshire Yeomanry and even the hon. and gallant Member for Bute and North Ayrshire does not think that the Territorials could help to act as a reserve for Hong Kong. If such a fantastic possibility is brought up, one can justify anything on the ground that one may need reserves in distant parts of the world. I do not know what will happen in Hong Kong, but the Chinese could make our forces there useless by turning off a couple of water taps. So the argument about reserves is as ineffective as that about what the Army can do on the home front.
The Government are entitled to look at expenditure on the Services and go over it with a small tooth comb in order to save the country money in a national emergency, and if hon. Members say that they do not want to save money at the present time they are traitors to their country, because what the country needs at present is economy. Our great need is to be solvent, and when I hear about the £ being in danger I wonder how the Territorials can defend the £. When the Defence Estimates were published, there was a report in the financial columns of the Glasgow Herald which said:

As a result of publication of yesterday's estimates the £ weakened on the Stock Exchange.
So the more money we spend on the Territorials, the more we spend on military strength, the more we weaken the £. As the most essential thing is to defend the and the national economy in this grave hour of financial crisis, I support the Government 150 per cent. in reducing this expenditure and saving us the £2½, million so badly needed.

7.35 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) says that what animates him is the desire to save money and to see the national economy stronger. The Territorial Army last year cost £2·4 million and on the same day that we were told that it was to be abolished we were asked to vote £72 million to nationalise private bus companies. The very same week, we had the White Paper asking us to vote £150 million for the Industrial Expansion Bill. The week before, we were told that the extra 52,000 civil servants brought in under this Government cost an extra £115 million a year.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to make economies, he should stop talking so much humbug. I am rather tired of this sort of humbug and of the kind of pacifist that he is, who is longing to send two divisions to have 'a bash at Mr. Smith. [Interruption.] I can say this. It is still a free country.
Today's battleground was well fought over in 1965 and 1966, and there was an uneasy truce between the two sides of the House. The Government earlier were persuaded to have second thoughts. I wondered at the time whether the victory won was hollow or not, and it is too early to say how today's debate will turn out because we do not know the outcome of the discussions between the Ministry and the Territorial Army Council.
At any rate, on both sides of the House, certainly on this side, the decision to create the T & AVR III was widely welcomed and that is really what we are talking about today. During the Second Reading of the Reserve Forces Act, speaking from the Front Bench, I implored the Defence Secretary not to take a skinflint attitude towards the Territorial


Army, and I warned the Government that they would be squandering one of the country's great assets and that the Territorials would fail if they were treated as no more than a grudging concession to public pressure. In my view, it has only been due to the tenacity, keenness and loyalty of the Territorials that, although starved of modern equipment, they have survived as an efficient and valuable military force. They have not failed the country. It is this weak-kneed Government who may very well fail the Territorials, and they will fail them if they abolish the Territorial Army.
The arguments for keeping the Territorial Army in being as a home defence force were very strong two years ago and we deployed them fully. They are stronger today. Recent panic changes in defence policy increase and underline the vital need for such a body of men, trained and disciplined, with local knowledge, adaptable and versatile, mobile, as they should be but are not, and armed at least with basic equipment.
Such a force is needed to help the under-strength and over-stretched police forces in emergencies such as flood or fire, the Torrey Canyon disaster, foot-and-mouth disease or a serious rail disaster. That is surely common ground between us. It is needed in the event of a serious breakdown in normal orderly behaviour which might spring, for example, from serious racial strife which, happily and wonderfully, we have been free from so far. Such a force would be needed in the awful event of war.
The Under-Secretary of State was less than candid today when he only told the House of the primary rôle given to the Territorials when this force was created. He conveniently forgot the speech of the Minister of Defence for Administration in a debate on 2nd February, 1966. The Minister said:
Its primary rôle …would be in helping the civil powers in the maintenance of law and order if called for after a nuclear attack, but it will also be used to engage enemy forces if they were in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 1101.]
I am sorry that that was not mentioned today. It was less than candid of the hon. Gentleman rather conveniently to forget that subject.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): If the hon.

and gallant Gentleman will allow me. I made that statement in reply, either to a Question or an interjection made during the debate. It would apply to any military forces that we had in this country if there was a physical attack upon us by enemy forces. All of them would be used. The primary rôle of T & AVR III was and is that which I stated. It is equipped and trained for it.

Sir T. Beamish: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that he did not mean what he said. The need for such a force is greater because of the savage reductions made in our Regular forces—and we still do not know how far these reductions are to go—and because of the serious inadequacy of our Regular Reserves, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Rams-den) drew attention.
Coupled with these cuts in the Regular forces and the lack of an adequate trained Regular Reserve is the reckless proposal by the Government virtually to abolish civil defence, in spite of a statement by a Home Office spokesman in another place that in the event of a nuclear war—
…only Civil Defence could ensure the survival of the nation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd March 1967; Vol. 281, c. 784.]
I am sorry to see the Minister of Defence laughing.

Mr. Reynolds: I am not laughing.

Sir T. Beamish: I am glad to hear it. In 1966 we were told in the Defence White Paper that the Government were urging on our allies that they
…should abandon those military preparations which rest on the assumption that a general war in Europe might last for several months.
This was in spite of the view of Sir Solly Zuckerman, which I quoted on 10th May, 1966 that:
…the Russian High Command now believes that there could be operations in Western Europe in which…the fight would be waged in a non-nuclear or conventional fashion.
I read that statement out on the last occasion and the Minister of Defence scoffed at the time and chose to stand up and interrupt me, to say in effect that it was a lot of rubbish. This year my right hon. Friend has already deployed the point and I reinforce what he said.


We read in the Defence White Paper this year that it is N.A.T.O. policy to extend
…the conventional phase of hostilities, should war break out…
For how long a war could be kept conventional is anybody's guess, but it will, at any rate, be common ground between both sides of the House that the longer the war could be kept conventional the better.
The weaker the N.A.T.O. shield the greater the risk of having to use the sword. The nation's trained reserves, volunteer and regular, are part of the shield. Of this there can be no doubt. The new assumption that a conventional clash or confrontation would not automatically go nuclear in a few hours or days heavily emphasises the positive military value of the Territorials, whether in their home defence rôle, or as a framework for expansion in an emergency.
This is the view now held by the Army Board. This is almost certainly the case. There is a lot of support for this view on the other side of the House. I am sorry that we have not yet had a speech from hon. Gentlemen opposite criticising the Government's decision to abolish the Territorials, although I very much hope that we shall be having one quite soon. It was only yesterday that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), despite his other very strange remarks, said:
We could even respond to the demands for the rehabilitation of the Territorial Army."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 282.]
I am taking it for granted that he will be in the Lobby for us this evening after saying that. The Secretary of State admitted that the fourth slashing cut in defence during his unhappy and shameful term of office involved an element of risk which he
…would be reluctant to take in normal circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 67.]
That element of risk has been seriously increased by the fifth cut announced recently, of which this proposal to abolish the Territorial Army is part. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman is ready, however reluctantly, to inflict this still greater element of risk on Servicemen, regular and volunteer and on the nation as a whole.
He is ready to sacrifice one small but important safeguard in the shape of this volunteer force. Category III of the Territorials. It was the right hon. Gentleman who told a television audience on 22nd November, 1967, not to worry because
Fortunately, these cuts are having to be imposed when there is no risk of general war in Europe and very little risk of major operations overseas.
I would like to think that that is correct.
Now we have had the Home Secretary making a convenient discovery and telling us recently during the last debate on civil defence:
Cuba blew up very quickly. It is possible to form a judgment that future crises are likely to be longer developing than that was."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1800.]
What a wonderful assumption to make—without any explanation whatsoever. It has been abundantly demonstrated, time and time again that the present Government are capable of forming any judgment that they like regardless of the facts.
For the nation's defence policy to be based on the kind of judgment that is no more than wishful thinking is shameful, dangerous and irresponsible. Speaking of the danger of making false assumptions, to which the Secretary of State is all too horribly prone, I am reminded of Lord Milner, visiting Russia as a member of the Inner War Cabinet in 1917, who wrote that:
There is a great deal of exaggeration in the talk about revolution.
The revolution began the next day! How right Benjamin Franklin was when he said:
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.
That is something upon which we can all agree.
I sincerely believe that there is a real need to keep the Territorial Army in being. The case for it is self-evident. Keeping it in being would encourage regular recruiting; it would help to nourish the next tier, T & AVR II; it is needed as a framework for expansion if major war should break out or any serious emergency threatened the nation's safety. It is needed as a gesture on the Government's part to repair some of the


damage done to the morale of all Servicemen in the last three years and to the morale of the whole nation.
Perhaps I shall be regarded as "square", or as just a retired Indian Army colonel, or may be even a "superannuated member of the Hitler Youth" if I quote Kipling, but I am going to all the same. We have every reason to say with Kipling:
It's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an'
'Chuck him out, the brute!'
But it's ' Saviour of 'is country' when
The guns begin to shoot.
I really do believe that is every bit as true today as it was in Kipling's time. The Territorial Army is needed very badly to encourage and harness that spirit of dedication and service that is a precious British asset. It is important too as a link between civilians and soldiers.
The Territorial Army, when it so narrowly escaped destruction two years ago, was fostered on the Home Office. No doubt, it is now a matter of "last in, first out" for the Home Secretary. He is thankful to throw the unwanted child out, together with the Civil Defence Corps, the Auxiliary Fire Service and the other services, as well as the bath water. The Territorial Army's natural parent is the Minister of Defence. Let us hope that he will take it back into his family where it belongs. It is a child of which he can be proud, even if it cannot be proud of him. Please do not tell us that the cost of the Territorial Army is beyond the nation's means. I have touched briefly on this in replying rather brusquely to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who I see has beaten a hasty retreat.
I mentioned one or two examples of the kind of waste going on in the national economy, and I will give one further example. I spoke of the cost of nationalising the private bus companies, which will make them less efficient without any doubt and incidentally more expensive. The cost of nationalising the private bus companies which we were asked to vote on Second Reading one hour after the Prime Minister's statement in which he said that he would abolish the Territorial Army will be £72 million this year which would pay for the Territorial Army for more than a quarter of a century. If the Government are looking for some money,

they should drop the ridiculous Transport Holding Company Bill and keep the Territorial Army in being.
During the Second Reading of the Reserve Forces Bill, the Minister of Defence for Administration—I am glad to see him in his place—then Minister of Defence for the Army, was proud to wear a tie—I am looking to see whether he is wearing it now—which he described as:
Sanguine over the letters T.A., a hatchet and carver in saltire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 346.]
I see that he is not wearing the tie today. But I regard the hon. Gentleman as a genuine friend of the Territorial Army. I have every reason to say that. I watched him when we had our long-drawn-out debates during the Committee stage of the Reserve Forces Bill. He was then a genuine friend of the Territorial Army. I believe that he is today, and that he is doing his best to ensure that something worth while remains. If any of his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence is sporting that tie today, it can be only because the Government have again had the sense and courage to have second thoughts. I hope and pray that that is the case.
I am an optimist, and I hope that I am pressing on an open door. Britain has never been in greater need of men like these. We simply cannot afford to discard the Territorials and all that they represent.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I believe that the ability of this country to raise credible reserve forces was done away with two years ago when the Territorials were axed. There is, however, grave cause for concern today, because we are getting rid of the T & AVR III.
May I take issue with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army. He said that one of the reasons for disbanding the reserve rôle of the Territorial Army was that it did not provide a proper framework on which we could raise a reserve force. That just was not so, as anyone with any association with the Territorial Army will know. If that were so two years ago, it was much more so in 1939, but yet we were capable of raising a very substantial force for


this country. The standard of training was very much higher. Between Friday night and Sunday night my unit took part on more than one occasion in N.A.T.O. exercises in Germany. To say that these forces were not fit to have a reserve force built upon them is being unfair to them.
It is often said that we cannot tell what sort of conflict we are preparing for. I have never subscribed to the view that all-out nuclear war was the only thing for which we should prepare. I have always maintained that that was one of the things least likely to happen. The recent announcement about maximising conventional forces reinforces the arguments put forward in the past. I remember saying just over two years ago in the debate on the Territorial Army that the ability not to be able to raise reserve forces made us solely dependent on the nuclear weapon and that unless we definitely intended to use it from the word "go" nobody would believe us.
Let us consider one or two aspects of reserve forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) talked about suddenly bringing back our N.A.T.O. troops in an emergency. Anyone who has had anything to do with troop movements knows just what a problem it would be if the N.A.T.O. troops were brought back to this country. I disagreed with my right hon. Friend the other day when he said that we would have more time in future to prepare against any eventuality. We do not know just how long we have to prepare for eventualities. Therefore, one can conceive the possibility of our main forces being in N.A.T.O. and other forces being required possibly in the Mediterranean. Only in the past year have we escaped the conflict between Turkey and Greece by the merest margin. There was the Israeli-Arab war. Any of these could have involved us in sending troops to those areas. N.A.T.O. forces were engaged in the Turkey and Greece conflict. If that were to happen, what troops would be left in this country?
Two years ago, we decided that the only fighting teeth units would be used to reinforce the Regular Army. There were to be no teeth units left in this country, and that is the position today. By disbanding the T & AVR III we are getting rid of a nucleus with any sort of

military foundation. I should not hold out any great hope of mobilising a reserve force on it in its present state of training, but at least it is something on which we could build a force in case of emergency.
We are talking about saving £2½ million. We have had a package deal. Because one is not able to pick and choose in a deal like this, one has to accept many unpleasant things. It is no less unpleasant for me to see the T & AVR III folding up than it was to see what happened two and a half years ago. It is less vital at present than it was 2½ years ago. We did the damage then to our reserve forces, but we shall still damage them to some extent by what we propose to do now.
We talk about saving £2½ million, but I hear that it will cost £3 or £4 million to produce the cards which are to be given to people to enable them to get free prescriptions. Is this the right priority? I do not believe that it is. As I said the other day, we criticise the young people of this country and say that they want everything but are not prepared to give anything. Here are people who are prepared to give their services to the country. I know that many Territorial Army units are prepared to do that. I spoke at an auxiliary fire unit meeting only a week or two ago, and 100 per cent. of those present were prepared to give their services to the country.
What is the problem? Apparently it is that the pay which these people receive is probably only about one-tenth of the cost of running these forces. So we shall still be involved in expense by having to provide drill halls for them. I was alarmed the other day to learn that consideration has not even been given to integrating the fire services with existing Regular units with which they could do their training. What is wrong with integrating T & AVR III with existing T & AVR II forces? Unfortunately, many drill halls are under-used. There are nights when they are not being used. These people could be integrated and they could use the same drill hall without additional expense. I should like my hon. Friend to give an assurance that this point will be considered, because it is important.
On these occasions, we hear platitudes about loyalty and how people have served


the country. These things can be taken too far. I have always believed that the reason why we have had good recruitment in our Regular forces was that there has been a joining together between the Regular forces and the Territorials which has led the Territorials to wish to serve in the Regular forces. We hear that the Regular forces are not getting recruits. I am not surprised. If we do away with Reserve forces, fewer people will be prepared to go into the Regular forces.
I appreciate that the Government have difficulties, but I do not believe that the difficulties of this situation are insurmountable. Given good will by the Government—and we have the good will of the men—a scheme could be devised by which these forces could be saved. I do ask my right hon. Friend to consider this, because these people are a great asset to the country. They are the foundation upon which we could build reserve forces in emergency. I ask my right hon. Friend to use his best endeavours to try to do something in this respect.

8.0 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I am very glad to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth. (Mr. Crawshaw). I should like to pay tribute not only to the way in which he expresses his views and makes clear to the House his experience but to the courage which he exhibits in maintaining those views in what must be much more difficult circumstances than we have on this side of the House.
I should like to be as brief as possible because I know that there are others waiting to speak. The first point is that we are debating the future of the Territorial Army today against a different emphasis on requirement. I hope that the Minister will recognise that this is not an aspect of the problem newly thought up by the Opposition but that this is a collective view now on the part of our allies, and one to which we must pay very grave attention. There must be many hon. Members who have reflected very seriously after hearing the Secretary of State for Defence speak last night. We must feel—I certainly do—very perturbed about his attitude. Of course, behind all our defence thinking in this generation there lies the awful knowledge of the possibility of nuclear war, and this has undoubtedly dominated

the thinking of the ordinary people in this country for a decade or more. The potential nuclear war cannot be forgotten, but it is, I think, true to say that we as a generation are unlikely to be blessed with peace in our time from now on.
I have always thought it a quite unreasonable point of view to assume that because we have been fortunate enough to have had peace for some time we are going to be granted peace from now on. There is nothing in the nature of mankind, nothing in history, in experience, or in the practice of the world today, which can persuade me that peace is necessarily our likely future. So while we have in all our thinking this possibility of nuclear war, and we must strive to avoid that eventuality above all else, we must today regard the increasing possibility of a conventional requirement which was not being seriously considered even as recently as our last debate on the future of the Territorial Army.
This is a case where the Government have just cause for new thought, and for the reasons which my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) has already expressed. It does not seem from any of the spoken words of our allies that our N.A.T.O. partners are likely to be content with our reserves.
It has also been made clear, as my right hon. Friend said, by Mr. McNamara, that by adopting the approach of increasing readiness and training of our reserves we are making more flexible the N.A.T.O. forces' structure, and this seems to be a very positive contribution which reserves can offer. But the reserves in this country are committed to the Regular Army as such, leaving in this country itself the Territorial Army or nothing. So, as I see it, we provide our reinforcements for N.A.T.O., as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) has just said, in the rôle which the Minister stated on 29th July, 1965, of providing
such reinforcements for N.A.T.O. as our commitments require."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1965; Vol. 717, c. 694.]
This seems to me a requirement which no one has said is no longer needed. No one has even suggested today that such a requirement is no longer needed.
Therefore, I cannot believe myself alone in thinking that the necessity for the


Territorial Army is as great as ever. And yet today's debate is about the destruction of the structure—the whole structure, nothing less—of that Army. I wonder if the Government really understand that the fundamental point of importance is the structure, and it is that which we discuss today and which this Government propose shall be abolished. The important thing about a reserve is that it should be provided with a structure on which to build. I cannot share the view of the Minister when he suggests today that the structure is not a structure on which to build. That is precisely what the Territorial Army has provided, and what has been used, not only in this generation but long before.
I could not help being reminded today that the old Volunteers originated because the Government of the day failed to make any provision for reserve forces at the time when Napoleon III was threatening this very City, and so the history of the Volunteers is that their origin was due to the failure of the Government of that day. Of course, the Volunteers developed into a very substantial force, over 250,000 strong, and in 1908 into the Territorial Army.
So hon. Members opposite should not be surprised that the same volunteer spirit which served this country and inspired the Volunteers is still with us today, as evinced, as hon. Members have been describing, in the offer to continue in service, of many in the T & AVR III which it is proposed to abolish. So, while the rôle of the Territorial Army changes to meet the needs of the times, its structure is still needed, and it is for that structure that I for one, and many other hon. Members, are pleading today.
There is one aspect of it which I should like particularly to emphasise, and that is that the Territorial Army provides a unique volunteer, civilian force which extends an influence for good in this country far beyond the drill hall and offers opportunity of service and a community pride which nothing else can match. This is something of such value to our nation that it should not be lightly cast aside. Even if cynicism suggested that there are old-fashioned appeals, I think the Government should recognise, even if some of those on their own benches do not, that this is a volunteer

spirit and force which can be harnessed at a modest cost—equivalent to two miles of the motorway which I for one would like but would prefer to do without, if the choice were direct between that and the saving of this force.
So I would make again the point which has been made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth on this question of the cost of drill halls. If, as I understand, a drill hall costs approximately £2,000 a year to maintain, surely the drill halls existing for T & AVR II could be used by the T & AVR III, so that double use could be made of them. I know this does not cover the whole point, but it does offer some facility for training which is essential to the structure and which could easily be maintained on that basis.
In Scotland we have an outstanding record of service in the T.A. I wonder how many people remembered that in the Highlands alone there were 11 infantry battalions until 1965. The fact that so sparse a population can raise 11 infantry battalions itself alone illustrates clearly the desire of that community to serve, and illustrates the importance of this form of service to the community.
There has been no drop in numbers since the axe fell last time. Recently, when I was in Lerwick in Shetland, I was very impressed to see that the competing nationalities there were a Russian trawler drawing fresh drinking water, the Norwegian lifeboat which is stationed permanently in the harbour, and the Lovat Scouts proceeding unimpeded to the local drill hall, in spite of having been disbanded.
The discipline and training in this service must be of incalculable value at a time when self-discipline appears to be badly required in students and in Ministers of the Crown. We should keep a force which has great value to the nation and to our allies.
Winding up last night, the Minister of Defence said that we have no A.B.M. system proposed for the future. He said that it would be too expensive. Let us recognise in terms of cost what this much-criticised £2 million for the T.A. means. We must not get the balance wrong.
If we fail to absorb the good will and the spirit of service which is still available to us, we shall do a disservice not only to the present generation but to those


for an indefinite time to come. The present situation has come about because we have a Government concerned only to save their own position. Ultimately, they will be condemned in the country and regarded with the contempt which they deserve if they treat a matter upon which the whole population feels so strongly as they propose.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Naturally, one agrees with a great deal of the more moderate sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), and certainly I have thought a lot about the curtailment of this form of voluntary service. But I must object to such a strong expression as that in which she said that a form of Territorial service is one which no other voluntary service can match. I have an mind countless lady friends of mine who are actively engaged in the Women's Voluntary Service. There is no other service in the country which is superior to the voluntary work which they do.
The hon. Lady's statement is a serious denigration not only of the Women's Voluntary Service but of many others. For example, thousands give invaluable service to the community in the Y.M.C.A. and the Y.W.C.A. I resent anyone suggesting that they are in any way inferior, when the volunteers contribute from their own pockets and do not ask for money from the Church or the State. The Y.M.C.A. and the Y.W.C.A. are voluntary services which no military service in peacetime can match in value to the community.
If I may mention another voluntary service, I happen to be a member of the Temperance Alliance. Some of us have worked against great opposition to stop the consumption of alcoholic drink—

Mr. Heffer: Disgraceful.

Mr. Bence: One town in my corstituency is dry—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. This debate is about the Territorial Army.

Mr. Bence: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was about to point out that one town in my constituency is dry, and  that area there is no drill hall—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And no Territorials.

Mr. Bence: There axe Territorials in the area, but they do not join there. They go to Glasgow. Certainly there is no drill hall in Kirkintilloch.
I support the Government because of the experience of the past. In 1938, 1939 and 1940, the Government offered £60 a year under the National Defence Contribution for the purpose of recruiting voluntary forces to support the Regular Army. The requirement was for skilled men. The War Department had taken size of the situation. It saw that the German military machine was highly mechanised, employing a great deal of engineering, scientific and managerial skill. Some hon. Members will remember the situation then. Posters were displayed in factories, and men were recruited into this Reserve. When war broke out in September, 1939, many of them were called up. Within two years, they were sent back, because they were wanted in the factories. All of that effort resulted in about 60 per cent. of us having to stay in our factories to keep industry going.
This is the problem which an island like ours must face. The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) referred to Germany, France and Italy having reserve forces of 700,000, 800,000 and 500,000 respectively. European countries are liable to be overrun quite quickly, whatever their territorial forces. There is no European force that does not take up a war position. One hon. Gentleman opposite kept referring to the Government preparing for war. However, we are not debating defence proposals on a Supply Day in conditions in which we are preparing for war. This is not 1938 or 1939. We are debating the reorganisation of our Reserve Forces for many reasons other than economic ones.
Looking back on the years between 1938 and 1941, it would be a grave mistake to depend unilaterally on a defence force which could hold a conventional situation while relying on its own industrial base. Anyone who was in industry in those days knows what I mean by that. Our engineering forces and resources were so depleted that we had to have Lend-Lease. We just could not get the necessary men back from the Armed Forces.
Any Government would have to give careful consideration to how far they could support the Regular Army unilaterally with reserves and maintain the necessary industrial base to support it.

Mr. Younger: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman continue without correcting him. The Territorial Army is not allowed to recruit anyone who is in an important occupation of the sort that he has in mind.

Mr. Bence: That is the lesson of 1938, 1939 and 1940, and the previous Government decided on that limitation. Even in a conventional war, the major support must come from men who are well-trained and qualified technically to service and handle modern sophisticated equipment. That is what we must have. We cannot afford to recruit them into the Armed Forces. We tried that in 1938 and 1939, and we depleted the industrial base.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said that at the present moment the force is inhibited from recruiting certain professional and highly technical staff. The reason is that we have to keep them in the industrial base. To the extent that we keep them in the industrial base we are not providing the highly technical skilled force necessary to support a modern army. Therefore, one has to strike a balance. This is as I see it. I also remember 1914–18 when miners from South Wales rushed to join the Army, but they were sent back because we would have had no coal.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And in 1939.

Mr. Bence: And in 1939. The spirit of our people to jump into voluntary service in any emergency is terrific. It still is, and it should be harnessed. Many people in 1939–40 were disappointed when they were sent back. I know many who said "Never again", because their service did not seem to be wanted. One has to balance this, and the Government are in the difficult situation of having to balance a decision around these two features.
I believe that it is quite out of date for any sovereign State in Europe—even the United States—outside Russia and China to think in terms of the defence of its own independence and way of life

out of its own resources, whether by a professional army or a volunteer army. That sort of thinking, or providing for that sort of exigency is out for ever. We have to think in terms of working and co-ordinating all our resources, whether voluntary or professional, with the resources of other nations so that, in a united way, we can defend the integrity and the independence of nations such as our own.
I am not a pacifist. I would make a lot of sacrifices to defend my country as a free democratic society. I would never see it go under some autocratic or even bureaucratic tyrant. I would be among the first in coming forward to defend my country. I believe in voluntary services, but, for goodness' sake, do not let it go out from this House that we believe, as the hon. Member for Renfrew, East suggested, in what I thought was a gross statement to make, that the Territorial Army is a voluntary service which no other voluntary service can match. There are other voluntary services—

Miss Harvie Anderson: Perhaps the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire. East (Mr. Bence) will do me the courtesy of reading tomorrow what I have said. I ask him to desist from misquoting me.

Mr. Bence: Perhaps the hon. Lady will have it altered in HANSARD, because it will read very badly. I took down her words. She said, "There is no voluntary service that can match it." I repeat, it is a shocking—

Mr. Enoch Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his suggestion that my hon. Friend will go upstairs and endeavour to alter HANSARD?

Mr. Bence: I am saying that, if I am wrong, I will see it in HANSARD, and I will apologise to the hon. Lady. If I am correct, and it does not convey what the hon. Lady meant to say in principle, she can have it corrected. I cannot say fairer than that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): May I take it that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was not making any suggestion that the hon. Lady was likely to go up and correct anything in HANSARD?

Mr. Bence: No. If there is a grammatical misconstruction one can have it corrected. We have all done it. My impression is quite strong that that was what the hon. Lady said, and this is what drew me to my feet.
I hope it is understood that the House of Commons, in a free democratic society, gives equal appreciation to all forms of voluntary service in which people are enabled to play a part. I do not regret this step. I hope that the Front Bench will endorse what has been so strongly said on the Floor of the House: that we will always rely on and encourage people to give voluntary service.
Recently I was in the company of some ladies. One had retired from professional service and she was looking for something to occupy her time. She said, "They offered me something in Brussels. When I asked what the salary was, they said it was voluntary service. I could not possibly do that without a salary."

8.25 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I will speak briefly, because there are at least two other hon. Members wishing to speak.
In the general debate on defence earlier this week I said that while my party supported the statement in general, we had certain reservations. One was about the decision to cancel this part of the Territorial Army which we are now debating.
This is a very unwise step. I am not talking of trying to resuscitate the type of Territorial Army that we had in the 1930s, useful as it may have been in the context of that decade. I am thinking of the possibility of adapting and changing the Territorial Army to deal with the varied problems which are likely to face this country in the event of a civil or war emergency.
I will deal, first, with the potential size of the Regular Army. We understand that there is to be a force ceiling of approximately 180,000. With the return of forces from east of Suez, our commitments will be considerably reduced. It appears that the Government's present policy for Army deployment will be something as follows, and I hope that the Minister will correct me if my calculations are wildly inaccurate. B.A.O.R. will have approximately 50,000, there will be

10,000 in Hong Kong, in the Mediterranean, including Gibraltar, Malta and Libya, there will be about 5,000, in Cyprus possibly about 1,000, and in other odd areas about 1,000, making a total of 67,000, with the remainder presumably based in the United Kingdom. Given that the depot and training strength of the Army will be in the region of about 50,000 and the desirable active Regular reserves in the United Kingdom about 30,000, this gives a grand total of approximately 150,000 men who could be usefully employed.
Liberals have always argued against a worldwide rôle for strategic reasons, not for reasons of economy. Nevertheless, if the Government really wish to save money they could do so by cutting this ceiling strength. In the 1968–69 Estimates the net estimate of the Regular Army was about £187 million. A reduction of 30,000 men over a period of several years might bring with it an eventual saving of approximately £30 million. If we are to cut our professional forces, it is all the more necessary to preserve the capital asset of the Territorial Army. When I spoke earlier this week, I said that I would be happy to see the Regular Army reduced to about 150,000, provided that we had behind it much larger reserve forces, whether in the form of the Territorial Army, or in the form of some other reserve.
One understands that T & AVR I and II, and the Special Army Volunteer Reserve, will remain as immediate reinforcing bodies for the Regular Army. The White Paper puts the strength of these categories at 5,600 officers, and 50,000 men and women. I understand it is likely that this number will fall proportionately with the fall in Regular forces, but T & AVR III, which is really the Territorial Army, is to be disbanded, along with the Civil Defence Corps, a few associations still being retained on a care and maintenance basis.
It seems to me that there are extremely cogent reasons for retaining T & AVR III, the former Territorial Army. It has been reckoned that the cost of keeping these reserves is between £2 million and £3 million. This is about one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the total cost of our defence forces, and this seems a very short-sighted economy indeed. I understand that


T & AVR III contains many of the instructors who are also fit soldiers, and would be invaluable in an emergency when mobilisation becomes necessary. These men should not be confused with those in category 4, who are also instructors, but of a slightly older generation.
Men and women in these categories have been particularly useful when disasters have occurred in peacetime. They have been used to help in the Torrey Canyon disaster, Aberfan to some extent, and the gale damage in the Glasgow area and the Clyde Valley, and one can think of numerous other situations in which they could be usefully employed. There were also the examples of Exercise "Keep Clear", One, and Two, which were put on at short notice by the 4th Border Territorial Regiment, in which 15,000 vehicles were checked, and 250 walkers contacted during the foot-and-mouth epidemic in Cumberland in November and December last year.
The Territorial Army on a regional basis still provides a local recruiting centre for help in emergencies. There is a great deal of enthusiasm for service in such a body, and it seems regrettable that this should be wasted or dissipated.
With the scrapping of the Civil Defence, it is difficult to see what forces will be available to help preserve law and order if a crisis occurs. As has been stressed by many hon. Members during the debate, nobody can look into the future and see what crises will occur.

Mr. J. G. Concannon: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned during the defence debate, we are to have a substantial corps of Regular forces. Surely this will meet some of the problems to which he is referring?

Mr. Davidson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening when I said that I would be prepared to see the Regular Army reduced from about 180,000 to 150,000 if we had a substantial reserve behind it.
I was. interested to hear the views of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the need for training for insurgency operations. This is important, and I am glad to understand from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that this is done within the T.A. This

capacity will be lost if T & AVR III is abandoned.
I am not saying that the existing setup is by any means adequate. I think that insufficient use has been made of our Civil Defence manpower. It would be useful to do some research—if this has not already been done—into the feasibility of creating some sort of national voluntary disaster force out of the various auxiliary and Territorial Army categories. It could deal with the type of civil crisis to which I have referred. It could also incorporate the Auxiliary Fire Service, the Royal Observer Corps, and the Civil Defence, and have a professional corps to provide training and continuity, with a proper career and promotion structure, to which the various voluntary bodies could attach themselves. The variety of skills which would be required by such a professional corps would be no greater or more varied than those required of modern naval or army officers in the tremendously varied activities which they are expected to undertake.
I am delighted to have the opportunity of supporting the many cogent arguments which have been put forward for retaining this force. I hope that the Minister will think about this point, which has been made so forcibly by others. I am certain that the majority of people would, if they thought about it, favour maintaining this force. The cost is very small, compared with the total cost of defence.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: I am sorry that we are once again debating the future—or, unfortunately, lack of future—of the Territorial Army, since we last did so only almost exactly two years ago. I took part in those debates, when many of the arguments put with such force today were deployed. I echo the compliment paid by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) to the Minister of Defence for Administration, who has done much for the T.A. and has taken great trouble to get to know its problems. I hope that his undoubted concern will not desert him now. His help and understanding are needed now as never before.
I would ask those who have doubts about the use of the T.A. to inquire more closely into what it has been used for


and what it has been intended for, when they will realise its great importance. We had a revealing example of how these cuts arose in last week's Civil Defence debate, when the Home Secretary, whose predecessor, we know, reluctantly took over ownership of the T & AVR III two years ago, described how the process of cuts came to the Cabinet and faced him. It was crystal clear that the last responsibility which he had assumed was the one which had to go, because he had to make a contribution to the general cuts.
This is the most terribly casual and unfortunate way of ending such an institution. The Home Office and the Ministry of Defence may not appreciate that their duty is not only to do their best by their Cabinet colleagues and contribute to the burdens which they all have to beat at a difficult time, but also, at some point, to stand up and be counted and say, "Enough is enough". The T.A. comes within their sphere of activity, even if it is not on their Vote. They should have stood up to be counted and said that they would not stand for it being closed down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) made a most important point when he said that in future military planning for all types of force at all times top priority must always be given to planning for the unforeseen. However difficult it is to forecast any future conflict, the one certain thing is that the enemy, whoever he is, will be trying to confront one with the unforeseen—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman care to conclude this metaphysical argument by explaining how one plans for the unforeseen?

Mr. Younger: If the possibility is unforeseen, one obviously cannot say in detail how one could deal with it. However, the only way to cope with it is to have adequate reserves. Everything we are discussing today rests on the fact that, in any future military conflict, we may not be able to forecast what might happen, but that if we have adequate reserves we will at least have a chance, however small, of being able to meet the unforeseen.

Mr. Heffer: If the unforeseen turns out to be a vast nuclear weapon being

plonked in the middle of this country, what then?

Mr. Younger: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be dealing with that point. It would be hopeless to speak in a debate of this sort without covering it.
As I was saying, we must have adequate reserves. Some hon. Members have mentioned the forms of reserve that we will still have after these cuts have been implemented; namely, the T & AVR I, T & AVR II and so on. I accept the usefulness of these bodies, particularly the T & AVR II, and I appreciate that they have made a good start and that training is well ahead. The T & AVR II's rôle will be to bring the present Regular Army up to strength. It is, therefore, in military parlance, not a reserve but a reinforcement. If its only rôle is to bring the Regular Army up to strength, it will be needed immediately in any crisis to produce extra forces to make the Regular Army effective.
In the debate on Civil Defence the other day the Home Secretary made the remarkable forecast—I can only call it a forecast; I cannot think of a better adjective—that from now on we are likely to get at least six months' warning of a major conflict. The right hon. Gentleman produced no evidence to support that remarkable theory. Apparently a kind and helpful enemy will let us know, six months in advance, that we will have a war on our hands. The proposition is so ridiculous that I am surprised that the Home Secretary made it.
Suppose that we have a period of increasing tension, leading six months later to a conflict. Suppose that the Government are so well equipped with knowledge that they see the conflict coming and have their six months' warning. What will the effect be on the international situation if, at the beginning of that six months' period, the Government suddenly announce that they are recreating the Territorial Reserve or are calling up a large number of extra forces? This is the classic situation that leads to a build-up on both sides and which inevitably makes the resulting conflict more likely. It is, therefore, unrealistic to suggest that by disbanding our reserves we will be able to recall them during the warning period, even if such a period should exist.
Will a future conflict be entirely nuclear, entirely conventional or conventional for a time and then nuclear? It has been submitted that, in one or other of those alternatives, we will not need reserves. I cannot accept that because, whatever happens, the one common factor is the need for reserves. A prolonged conventional war will obviously mean reserves to replace initial losses and the operation of doubling one's reserves quickly to build up forces for such a long conventional war. In a short conventional war, too, the first thing that would happen would be the disappearance from this country of practically all the Regular forces at present stationed here. How conceivably could any conventional war of any size at all in Europe go on without a major part of our Regular forces here being transferred to Europe very rapidly, and leaving behind in this country absolutely nothing at all? That seems to be the second alternative.
The third alternative is the horrifying and quite dreadful one of a major nuclear war. In the dreadful event of any nuclear attack on this country, there would still be a great requirement for our Regular forces, and it would be then that the present T & AVR III reserves would be so desperately needed to help save lives amongst the civilian population—

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is a serious student of these matters. Would he reflect on the question whether a war in Europe would not within 48 hours involve the use of tactical nuclear weapons, something that makes the T & AVR III irrelevant. If he is turning his mind to the possibility of a long conventional war outside Europe, does he recognise that there are some people who would not in any circumstances lend support to his proposition?

Mr. Younger: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I cannot possibly state that a conventional war in Europe would lead in 48 hours to an exchange of nuclear tactical weapons. How can I make such a forecast? I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, who is also a serious student of these matters, that if he can make such an exact forecast of the way a future conflict would go, he is a very much greater clairvoyant than almost anyone in history has been,

and is ignoring the very point I made earlier, that almost always it is for the unforseen that one has to allow. I put that as a serious point.
If I may say so, a lot of nonsense has been talked about the T & AVR III and its rôle. It has been agreed by every serious observer, including the Ministry's advisers, and in our debates on the Civil Defence Corps that the presence of an organised force after a nuclear attack would save thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of lives. If we abolish this force, we will leave the civilian population with nothing and no one to help them.
It is quite unrealistic to suggest that the police, or the fire services, or any other local authority service could do the work. Their establishments are already under strength. They would be in a total state of over-commitment as soon as such an emergency took place. If anyone disbelieves me, they can ask any chief constable. The fire sevices would quite automatically have an appalling task—indeed, a completely impossible task—in such a disaster. There is no possible chance of their having spare manpower or equipment to help the civilian population.
The Government, although I am sure they do not mean it, will be leaving the civilian population with no form of protection or help whatever by abolishing the T & AVR III. The protection is little enough now, in all conscience, but in future it is to be nothing whatever. That is a desperately dangerous risk for any Government to take.
I therefore say that this is an irresponsible action, and one that should not have been taken by the Government. The money they will save could easily have been saved in other ways, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) made some very concrete suggestions about how it could be done. The Government should think again most seriously about the whole business.
And what about the men themselves? I can assure the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that the men are extremely angry at the suggestion that their forces are to be totally abolished. If the hon. Member does not believe me, I can show him some of the letters I have had about it. This is genuine anger and it matters a lot.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have had one of those letters. The heading is "Yeomanry House, Ayr". It ends with a paragraph about some gentlemen wanting 50 rounds of ammunition to welcome the Prime Minister when he comes to Ayr. Does the hon. Member approve of that?

Mr. Younger: I do not think I shall ever see the day when the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) loses his sense of humour. I think he will see that for what it is. He will see that it is emphasised that the ammunition has not been issued.
The feeling about this matter is genuine. People are very angry at the prospect of the force being disbanded. Quite a number of the hon. Member's constituents are involved. They are members of the Ayrshire Yeomanry and they have offered to serve without any pay. I think he will agree that this is a voluntary spirit which is highly commendable. It ought to receive support from everyone in this House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose—

Mr. Younger: I have been very good to the hon. Member and I always like to give way to him, but I must get on now because other hon. Members want to speak.
The Government would do a service to the country and to the volunteers who have worked so well if they even left them the present drill halls and uniforms. The rest of the service would be given for practically nothing. This is a spirit which the Government should recognise and respect. I hope that they will reprieve the Territorial Army and let it continue to do the job that it has done so well.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I apologise to both Front Benches for not having been present during the whole debate. I apologise sincerely, but I am on the Transport Bill Committee. I think that excuses me. If I am not back in that Committee by 9 o'clock I may be "absent without leave". Therefore, if I make my points quickly and scuttle through the door, I hope I shall be forgiven.
I made my maiden speech nearly two years ago on the Territorial Army Bill. I was on the Standing Committee for that

Bill. If the Bill had gone through as it was intended, the argument we are having today would not have taken place. I think it was due to a certain amount of pressure from certain quarters that we put in the T & AVR III. I thought it a mistake then, and I still do.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) completely disregarded the last Defence Review when he said that the present proposal will leave the civilian population absolutely defenceless. If he was present during the defence debate, he would realise that a brigade is to come back from the British Army on the Rhine to be stationed in this country, we also will have thousands of troops coming from the Far East and the Middle East to be stationed in this country. All the strategic reserve will be in this country and we shall not be short of reserves. The spokesman for the Liberal Party said that he would rather see the Regular Army cut down and the Territorial Army kept up to strength.
I view this matter, not through nostalgic memories of the Territorial Army, although I was a member of it until I came to this House, but in terms of necessity. I view it from the aspect, is it unnecessary? I do not think the T & AVR III is or was necessary. We are all having to swallow a few sacred cows nowadays. I do not think the Territorial Army or the Reserves should be sacred cows. Industry is having to be skimmed down and to take a little fat off the carcass, as an hon. Member said yesterday. This is one of the things to which that can happen. In my maiden speech I made scathing remarks about the equipment used in the Territorial Army. We had to use radio sets and signal equipment with Russian insignias on them. We had lent these to the Russian Army in the first part of the war and had had to borrow them back and pass them on to the T.A. I give great credit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the one thing that the T.A. now has, which is first-class equipment. The T.A. is a first-class and well-trained body. I have always argued that I would sooner have a small but well-trained, well-armed and well-equipped body than a large, ill-trained and ill-equipped body.
We have heard about the pressure being brought to bear on hon. Members.


I have received one letter about this T.A. business. That was written by a lieutenant-colonel who was more bothered about his job than he was about the T.A. If public indignation about the fate of the Territorial Army or the T & AVR III is to be judged by letters of protest, I must freely admit that I have not received one letter. I do not understand where the pressure is coming from.
I think that this body is one thing that we could well do without. As a result of the new arrangements, the T & AVR III is superfluous. With all the regular forces that are to return to Britain, and for which we can find neither barracks for the men nor homes for their families, I believe that there is no need for the T & AVR III, whose only rôle was, in the case of nuclear attack, to look after the civilian population. It looks as if most barracks will be full of regular soldiers, who are now better equipped, better armed and better trained than they ever were, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
It is getting close to 9 o'clock and I must get up two flights of stairs. I apologise to the House. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will forgive me if I move on quickly. We must be quite honest about this. This is one of the sacred cows which we have been nursing for some years. This issue must be regarded in the same way as industry has been regarded. If Britain has to be dragged screaming into the 1970s, the Territorial Army must be part of the operation. Some hon. Members and some members of the public will find it distasteful to disconnect themselves from the T.A. A man who has to be redeployed finds it distasteful, too. I think the men in the T.A. will be able to take this in their stride and will recognise the need for it.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I shall not follow the speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), but I am disappointed that he, a former member of the Territorial Army, is so out of touch with the feeling in the community. I am a former commanding officer of a Yeomanry regiment and a member of a Territorial Association. Whether that qualifies me by ex

perience or damns me by prejudice I know not, but what I do know is that there is a great feeling in the country, in the Midlands particularly, against the cutting out of the T & AVR III.
I shall summarise the three reasons why I condemn the Government's decision. First, we are to disband a body of disciplined trained men, a vital aid to the civil power, men who, by the nature of their recruitment, know their local area. They are men who, given the bare minimum of equipment, could supply good communications. Does the Government's decision to cut out the T & AVR III have the support of chief constables throughout the country? Those who have spoken to me condemn it as I condemn it. They feel that they are losing a vital aid to the civil power.

Mr. Heffer: Who is going to be suppressed?

Mr. Boardman: Second, the T & AVR III is a base—

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry for my outburst, but I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman. He said that the T & AVR III would aid the civil power. Is he suggesting that the Territorial Army would be used to suppress someone in this country?

Mr. Boardman: The rôle of the T & AVR III has been clearly spelt out, to help in various ways as an aid to the civil power in case of emergencies, disturbances, civil unrest and the like. There are many occasions when they could be of invaluable help to the police force.
The second ground on which I condemn the Government's decision is that, by cutting out the T & AVR III, they are cutting out the base for recruiting for the T & AVR I and II and for the Regular Army. The influence of people in the T & AVR III spreads through the villages in the country, and through its members an impact is made which brings in recruits to the T & AVR I and T & AVR II and the Regular Army. We are cutting out an indispensable source of manpower to supplement the Regular forces, and we are cutting out the only framework which we have upon which we could build a national army.
Despite the facts of the nuclear age, or because of them, we cannot be sure


that we shall not want a greater conventional force than we have required in the past. As has been said with far more eloquence from both sides of the House, the very existence of the nuclear deterrent has given rise to greater demands and possible tasks for conventional forces.
Third, the Government's decision is killing the volunteer spirit, a spirit which should be fostered. There have been comments made about volunteers by hon. Members opposite. I do not suggest that the volunteer spirit in the Territorial Army is any better or worse than in other voluntary organisations. The volunteer spirit in the Boys' Brigade, the Women's Voluntary Service and many other bodies is excellent and ought to be fostered, but the Territorial Army is a particular cause for voluntary service which appeals to many. That spirit should be fostered and encouraged. It enables people to respond to the spirit and proud traditions of regiments and to give voluntarily of their time to what they believe to be in the interests of national security. It is good for them, and it is good for the country. If that spirit is killed now, as the cutting out of the T & AVR III can kill it, it will be dead for ever and future generations will condemn this Government for their folly.
We shall become the only nation of any size which has no kind of home defence force. And for what?—a saving of £.2½ million. We are told that we must be governed by priorities. What priorities?—the Government have put ahead of the Territorial Army a Transport Bill the cost of which in one year would keep the Territorial Army for 25 years. These are the Government's priorities. They put nationalisation before national security, bureaucracy before voluntary service. The country may in time forget many of the acts of folly of this Government, but this decision people will not easily forget. Nor should they.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: In replying to the powerful speech with which n-y right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) opened the debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army took an astonishingly dogmatic view of the nature of any future war in which this country might

be involved. Other hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman), Ayr (Mr. Younger) and Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) have been more modest. In their view, it is difficult to foretell with precision what sort of conflict this country is likely to be involved in.
They have the support of some of the most notable names in British military history because, in December, 1965, six Field-Marshals—Alexander, Auchinleck, Festing, Harding, Slim and Templer—wrote a letter to The Times. They were alarmed by the Government's proposals then to mutilate the Territorial Army. Those plans for mutilation were modified but the Field Marshals' words remain as true today as they were then. Perhaps they are even more true, because there have been at least three changes in Government policy since then. They said:
Nothing is more certain than that any future war will develop along unexpected lines.
In the past 12 months four wars have occupied the headlines in our newspapers from time to time. There is the Nigerian civil war. Not very many of us in the House are experts on the military balance in Nigeria. But I never saw any expert who believed that the forces of Biafra would sweep forward and occupy Benin, albeit temporarily. There are a great many experts about the military balance in the Middle East, but not one of them forecast at the beginning of June that in two weeks' time the forces of Israel would stand on the east bank of the Suez Canal and the west bank of the Jordan. There are many military experts who know something about the Far East, and many of them believed that the Viet Cong might well be able to create severe trouble in the cities of South Vietnam. But I do not think that any military expert foresaw that the Viet Cong would be able to occupy and hold part of the city of Hue as they did.
Lest we be too smug about some of the miscalculations of others, I should acid that I do not believe that many people in this country, or many military experts, foresaw that we should lose control of part of Crater during the Aden operation. So, in those four conflicts that have captured our attention during the past 12 months, the unexpected has happened.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the French prophesied that the Americans would not win in Vietnam?

Mr. Goodhart: No military experts foresaw what happened. As the Field Marshals noted in December, 1965:
The destruction of the T.A. framework will deprive the Nation of a means of insuring against the unexpected…
Once again we have returned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) pointed out, to a basic debate about the framework of the Territorial Army.
As a result of the pressure exerted in the House from this side, from the country as a whole, from the Field Marshals and from the honourable and now politically gallant Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), a change was made in the plan. The T & AVR III was formed despite the wishes of Ministers. Recruiting for both the T & AVR III and the T & AVR II as a whole has gone at least as well as could be expected at the time, although there are some reservations as to the way in which the recruiting for the Ever-readies has gone.
The net total expenditure on the Army reserves has been astonishing value for money. This year, the net total expenditure for the whole of the Army reserves, including the Army Cadet Force, to which we look for so many future members of the armed forces, is the equivalent in cost of one of the cancelled F111Ks. Even last year and before the new cuts had come into effect, the net cost of the Army reserves amounted to no more than the cost of one of the giant new Galaxy military transport aircraft coming into the American arsenal.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) pointed out that, for the cost of the Transport Holding Bill, we could have the T & AVR III for the next 25 years. Indeed, the cancellation charges alone for the F111 would keep the T & AVR III going for another 20 years. We have had remarkable value for money from these forces. Now, many members of these forces, who receive minimal reimbursement for their efforts, have volunteered to serve without any allowances, provided only that they

are allowed to use some of their equipment and some of their drill halls.
We have had the remarkable testimony of my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr and of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn). Yet this magnificent spirit is about to be thrown away. It almost seems as though the Government are prepared to denationalise our home defence system.
But is there still a genuine rôle for the T & AVR III? As the Minister of Defence for Administration said on 10th May, 1966:
…their primary rôle is to support the police in the maintenance of law and order after a nuclear onslaught, and they will be available, if required, to give aid to the civil power.
He was nice enough to add:
If there were landings in this country, we should not tell them to go home to bed. We should tell them to do something to assist in repelling the landing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 350]
I cannot believe that the principal rôle of T & AVR III has entirely disappeared in the last 18 months. It is true that there is no area in which the thinking of the Government has been both more dogmatic and more changeable in assessing the nuclear risk to this country. When it comes to nuclear attack on the country, the Government are quite certain it would be an all-out strategic assault, leaving total devastation. There would hardly be anyone or anything left worth saving, and therefore there is not very much point in being prepared, they say.
But 25 miles across the Channel the Government there contemplate a very different form of warfare, the prolonged form of conventional war. Will no bombs drop on this country during a period of such conventional war? Certainly in past conventional wars on the Continent, bombs have dropped on this country, and I see no reason to believe that it would not happen again. The Government across the Channel look forward to a period of exchange of tactical nuclear weapons, not leading quickly or inevitably to the ultimate in strategic devastation. Is there no possibility that during that period of tactical nuclear


exchange none of those weapons will fall on this country?
Here again the Government are taking far too certain and dogmatic a view of the possibilities lying ahead. We all hope and pray that the Government will get away with this gamble on civil defence and that no bombs will drop. With disasters, as well as with war, the unexpected happens all too often. This country has not escaped its share of disasters in the last year. Last Easter the "Torrey Canyon" ran aground and oil threatened the beaches of the South Coast. The Army reserves, particularly T & AVR III, played a notable part in combating that menace. In the autumn, foot-and-mouth ravaged an important part of the country and it was necessary to restrict the movement of the public. Once again T & AVR III was called upon.
Even more recently the hurricanes which inflicted so much damage on Glasgow and the West of Scotland made fresh calls upon the equipment and men of T & AVR III. I am afraid that in future there may be many disasters of a civil nature for which one would be anxious to have a trained body of men available to help the civil authorities. The nature of the threat can well change.
We are getting considerably more violent in political life. Last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer was nearly thrown into a goldfish pond by the enraged undergraduates of Oxford. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Home Secretary."] Sorry, the Home Secretary. I am one behind.

An Hon. Member: The hon. Gentleman always is.

Mr. Goodhart: Then the Secretary of State for Education was howled down by students at Manchester. On Friday the Secretary of State for Defence is to go to Cambridge and has been promised a lively reception there. The University Labour Party, the Radical Students' Alliance and the University United Nations Association are all supposed to be staging wrecking demonstrations. All these groups want to see the military power of Britain slashed. Therefore, the decision to try to wreck the Secretary of State's meeting is mistaken, to put it mildly.
The heroes of the protest movement in the universities, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who wishes to make a reduction tonight in the number of men we are entitled to have in the Army, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who have for years protested about the size of the defence forces, have not been able to reduce the military strength of this country at all. But the Secretary of State for Defence has slashed the defence forces of this country in review after review. Therefore, instead of demonstrating and trying to break up the right hon. Gentleman's meeting, they should drag his car in triumph through the streets of Cambridge and throw posies of forget-me-nots under the tyres.
What would happen if all 21 Cabinet Ministers, through some mischance, were to speak at universities on the same night? The police forces of this country could hardly be expected to deal with this unprecedently dangerous situation. The strategic reserve would have to be deployed. Its priority task would be to protect the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. What would be left for the others? If the Minister of State were to talk to a polytechnic, he might—

Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the combined strength of all the British universities is incapable, in the ordinary course of events, of causing anything like the disruption caused by the post-prandial excitement of the Opposition just before a vote, as we saw last night?

Mr. Goodhart: The Secretary of State for Defence described me as a superannuated member of the Hitler Youth. All that I can say is that he has done more damage to our defence forces than even Field Marshal Rommel did during the last war.
During the months which have passed since the reorganisation of the Army reserves in 1966, there has been a growing appreciation of the military value of reserves. In his farewell testament to the defence world, Mr. McNamara, in a passage quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate at the beginning of this debate, said:
The greatest deficiency in the European N.A.T.O. forces is the lack of an adequate mobilisation base.


In the United States, they have been practising what they preach. There, the Army reserve forces amount to 660,000—more than 10 times our own reserve figure. Of course, their standing army is nine times larger than our own, but the proportion of reserves to the standing army is even higher there than it is here. I have here a list of our N.A.T.O. allies and their army reserves related not only to their populations but also to the size of their standing armies. Needless to say, we are at the bottom of both leagues.
Meanwhile, it is true that the value of reserves has been underlined by the events of the six-day war in the Middle East. It was, after all, not a wholly professional army which scored such spectacular victories. It was an army composed of more than 75 per cent. of reservists, and even the commander of the armoured division which won the vital tank battle in front of E1 Arish was a reservist. In the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that military opinion in this country and in other countries is now attaching increased importance to the military capacity of reserves. This new military respect for reserves has certainly been extended to T & AVR III which was regarded, let us admit, when it was first set up, with a certain amount of scepticism by certain officers in the Ministry of Defence, but certainly their view of the importance of T & AVR III has changed sharply.
As Member after Member has said during the debate this afternoon, the Reserve Forces, as they will be constituted if T & AVR III is regrettably allowed to die, will be centred entirely in our towns and cities, and this means that the Army will be separated from areas with which it has had some of the closest relationships in past decades, and which have provided some of the finest recruits which the Regular forces have had in their ranks. If T & AVR III does finally fall under the axe, then the residual ability to extend our Army will have been squandered for ever.
On one side, the Secretary of State for Defence seems to suggest that his policy is changing, that there should be an extended period of conventional fighting in Europe if war should break out. On the other side, he proposes that there should be drastic cuts in the conventional

forces. If any logic has survived the financial panic into which the Government have fallen, then surely one should be concentrating on increasing the Reserves rather than on cutting them, and surely one should not be abolishing the one structure to which one can look for expansion in the future. The Under-Secretary of State, in replying to my right hon. Friend, drew the narrowest possible view of the rôle and function of the Army Reserves as a whole.
We on this side of the House have never accepted that it is the sole purpose of the Territorial Army to supply certain units and formations in Germany to carry out a precise rôle. We believe that our safety and the future of the British Army as a whole requires that the Army Reserve should be a genuine citizen volunteer reserve. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have done their best to destroy that volunteer spirit among the reserves which exist. We shall do our best to put it back.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): This has been a quiet debate compared with many, particularly when one remembers the debate on the Reserve forces some two to two and a half years ago. It has also been a not very well-attended debate on either side of the House. One normally expects the people putting forward a Motion to provide a better attendance than we have had from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. There were 25 present during the speech from their own Front Bench, and that seems a small number on an occasion of this kind.
At the outset, I want to apologise to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in case he loses track of my remarks tonight and feels obliged to interrupt me. I would point out to him that though he could not assimilate what I said yesterday, the HANSARD reporters managed not only to hear it but to take it down and transcribe it.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: At the moment, the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding at a fairly sedate pace, but he may have observed that the Daily Telegraph calculated that he spoke at 600 words a minute.

Mr. Reynolds: That is double the rate of delivery.
The hon. Member for Beckenham said that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army took a dogmatic view of the type of war likely to occur in Europe. I will not enter into that argument now. Suffice it to say that we do not take as dogmatic a view of the likely type of war in Europe as that taken by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) in the 1957 Defence White Paper, which has formed the main basis of the deterrent force that we have had since then to stop a war happening in Europe.
He also said that the number of reservists in the United Kingdom made us bottom of the league table, and he hinted that it had something to do with the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. However, the reason is that we do not have conscription, whereas the majority of European countries have large reserves because they have conscription, with large numbers of men serving for eighteen months to two years and then being allocated to the reserve. Without that large turnover of conscripts, we do not have a very large reserve to depend on. In other words, the main reason why we have not a large reserve is because of the decision, with which I do not quarrel, to abolish conscription some years ago.

Mr. Ramsden: It is not true to say that, because we still have considerable numbers of reservists residuary to conscription. What we have not any longer is the formations in which to put them.

Mr. Reynolds: Only this morning, I was reading a speech of the right hon. Gentleman where he referred to the Army General Reserve and the legislation for which he was responsible, which will come to an end in 1969. During the course of his speech, he reserved the right to extend the liability, if necessary. I hope that it will not be necessary when the time comes.
Before coming to the Motion and trying to answer some of the points raised, perhaps might say a word about the T & AVR III, which is really the matter under discussion. I cannot understand the attitude taken up by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because that body is not mentioned in the Motion. What has prompted it is the Government's announcement on 16th January

of their intention to put home defence on to a care and maintenance basis leading to the disbanding of the Civil Defence Corps, the Auxiliary Fire Service and the T & AVR III.
The T & AVR III and its proposed disbandment is not mentioned in the Motion. I looked back this morning and discovered I first sent a minute in connection with reserve forces in the Territorial Army on 4th November, 1964, just a few days after having been appointed Under-Secretary for the Army. I can safely say that since that date I have spent more time dealing with Territorial Army matters than any other single subject for which I have been responsible within the Ministry of Defence.
During 1965 and 1966 I visited more Territorial Army units in their drill halls, at camp, and on training days than any of my predecessors. In that time, although I knew it before, I saw the great spirit displayed by those Territorial Army units.
During 1966 we had the Reserve Forces Act. I visited further units in 1967 and found a great difference. There were many differences. One battery of a regiment that I visited in 1967 had a strength almost equal to that of a complete regiment which I visited in 1965 and 1966.
There have been many changes in the Territorial Army since 1947 when it was reformed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Rams-den) was responsible for one of them. No matter what changes there have been in the order of battle, the name of the unit, the rôle or the strength of the unit, the spirit has remained the same throughout—exceedingly high—and that spirit is still present in all branches of the T & AVR I, II, III and IV.
I do not wish anything that I say tonight to be interpreted as any criticism of the spirit of the Territorial Army or of the individuals who voluntarily provide the manpower on which the units depend.
The history of the formation of the T & AVR III has been given two or three slightly different versions during the debate. Her Majesty's Government have now decided to make a reduction in the strength of Civil Defence. As the T & AVR III is concerned in that rôle,


I regret to say that it will suffer this reduction, together with the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service.
As my right hon. Friend stated on 29th February, we have decided to reduce Civil Defence, not to abandon it. He went on to state, concerning the Civil Defence Corps, that it is intended, first, to preserve the operational and physical assets; secondly, to provide such training as is necessary to preserve the core of knowledge and experience; thirdly, to store the necessary equipment; and, fourthly, that the local authorities will continue planning at the minimum level necessary to enable more active preparations to be resumed.
The T & AVR III has to be put on a similar basis. We are having discussions about various ways and means of doing that with representatives of the Territorial Army Council who, as on many occasions in the past, have accepted the fact that Her Majesty's Government decides the policy to be followed. Whether they agree or disagree with it, they accept the responsibility for carrying out the day-to-day administration of the force and we are grateful to them for doing that.
Concerning the T & AVR III, as well as Home Defence facilities, it has to be looked at in the same way as the Civil Defence Corps and the A.F.S. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that it was intended to be financed 90 per cent. from the Home Office and 10 per cent. from the Ministry of Defence Vote. That 10 per cent. was deliberately provided for from the Ministry of Defence Vote because, in addition to the Home Defence rôle of the force, the Army in the United Kingdom got certain benefits from its existence. The Army got benefits by having an Army presence in parts of the country which would not otherwise have an Army presence. Definite advantages were obtained.
Concerning recruiting for the T & AVR I and II and for the Regular Army: in the first nine months of existence of the T & AVR, at a time when it had only just got going and one could not say it was typical, there was evidence that the T & AVR III was providing volunteers and acting as a recruiting agent for T & AVR I and II and the Regular

Army. It helps recruiting throughout the country by providing facilities which the recruiting machine is able to use. Equally important—I am not dealing with the point about cadets, because that can be dealt with in the later debate—in many drill halls, which are used solely for T & AVR III units, there is a cadet unit in occupation, too. Therefore, we got the advantage of these premises for the cadets. We arranged for 10 per cent. of the cost of T & AVR III to be met from the Army Vote, because there was a benefit to the Army, in addition to the actual primary rôle of the force in home defence.
We have to find methods to retain these benefits for the Army and at the same time evolve a method whereby, if necessary, the Home Defence Force can be expanded in line with the expansion of other Civil Defence services. We are discussing with representatives of the Territorial Army Council what this framework will be. It will be a framework only, and will cost only a fraction of the present cost of T & AVR III. It will take time to work this out, but, meanwhile, we will not be able to have any camps for the Territorials this year. We shall begin to start posting procedures which will affect the permanent staffs of the T & AVR drill halls, and begin making plans for the rundown and redundancy of civilian staffs involved.
Until we come to final decisions on the type of machinery that we shall require to meet both the home defence rôle, and to replace those facilities which we would otherwise lose supporting the Army, we shall be leaving training centres open. We hope to announce this machinery as quickly as possible. I realise the necessity for making an announcement as soon as we can, because many people are living in a state of suspense and suspended animation. We shall make an announcement about the details of the type of machinery that we are intending to keep in being, in line with the procedures being followed for the A.F.S. and the Civil Defence force.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) announce, I think for the first time ever, that he proposed to support the Government 150 per cent. I make no comment on that, except to say that I hope his support will continue at that


level during the rest of the night, tomorrow, and on Monday. If it does, we shall part good friends at the end, but I am not sure that that will happen.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me many questions, and a number of points were raised by hon. Members, and I would like to answer as many as I can.
The right hon. Member for Harrogate asked about T & AVR I. I understand that at the moment there are about 1,100 men in T & AVR I units; but as there is an establishment of about 1,600, there are 500 vacancies at the moment for anyone who wishes to join a T & AVR I unit. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the number of Special Army Volunteer Reserves that we have at the moment. He will remember that as from 1st April this year we took all Special Army Volunteer Reserves both from the Regular Army Reserves and from various categories of T & AVR. From Section A of the R.A.R. we have 215, from Section E we have 168, from Section D we have 207, from T & AVR I we have 671, front T & AVR II we have 1,163, making a grand total of about 2,424. This is considerably below the ceiling which we hoped to reach in that category of reserves, whether from the Regular Army or from T & AVR. The establishment of the Special Army Volunteer Reserve is 8,600, of which we hoped to have 1,600 from T & AVR I, 3,500 from the Regular Army Reserve, and 3,500 from other categories of T & AVR.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked what facilities there were for armoured car training in the Reserves. We have only one regiment of yeomanry fully equipped with armoured cars in T & AVR II. But most of the provision for bringing units in B.A.O.R. up to strength will be met from Regular Army Reserves who will he posted as individuals to that part of the world if it is necessary to bring B.A.O.R. up to strength.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to AER I and II having, under previous arrangements, formed logistic units to support limited war operations in parts of the world outside Europe. He said that some of the old AER I and II now in T & AVR I and II had a commitment to meet requirements in B.A.O.R. He asked whether we were in a position to meet the requirements in B.A.O.R. if there was a limited war somewhere else.

I assure him that the facilities available to us in the Reserve forces as a whole, as well as in the Regular Army, make it possible to provide the forces required for the type of limited war that has always been planned for over the last 10 years and to carry out B.A.O.R. reinforcement plans at the same time.
Many hon. Members said that they had received reports from their T.A. units—and the same sort of suggestions have come from the Civil Defence Corps and the A.F.S.—that individual members, in large numbers, are prepared to carry on training without pay of any kind. This is indicative, as I would expect, of the spirit in these units. The actual cost of T & AVR III in the current year is about £2·8 million. It was announced by the Government when the force was set up that we would expect it to cost about £3 million. It is only £2·8 million because it is considerably under the maximum establishment. Of that £2·8 million, about £600,000 is pay and the various allowances for travelling and refreshment and so on, which are paid in cash to the volunteers. Therefore, even giving up pay and allowances would save only £600,000 out of a total £2·8 million, and it would not be possible for the volunteers to continue training without the drill halls being kept open and rifles, ammunition, ranges and other facilities being provided. I cannot see that it would be possible to continue with any worthwhile savings in this way, much though I appreciate the offer.
I must comment on the statement by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) that, just before the war, when he was out with his T.A. Unit, someone had to carry a flag to represent an anti-tank gun or other equipment which the unit did not have. May I also refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), before he went back upstairs to the Committee on the Transport Bill, in which he drew attention to the equipment which the T & AVR I and II units now have, under the reorganisation.
There is no need, in any of those units, for anyone to carry anything to represent something which they do not have, because they have pretty well all the equipment required, except for the few pieces of equipment which my hon. Friend


the Under-Secretary of State mentioned, so they can do proper and realistic training. One of the purposes of the reorganisation was to ensure that men prepared to give up their time were in units which had a task to perform and were equipped and trained to perform it. In T & AVR I and II, we have succeeded in doing that over the last 12 months: it was one of our main purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) suggested that it might be a good idea to bring the B.A.O.R. home and said that it could be sent back quickly if required. But it is a massive operation to get over to Germany, in the event of a N.A.T.O. simple alert, the considerable number of individuals, regular reservists in the main, who would be required to bring the existing units in B.A.O.R. up to wartime strength, since they are only at peacetime strength at present, and the very large number of T & AVR II units which must provide the logistic support needed in wartime but not in peacetime and which are therefore not there at present. As the right hon. Member for Harrogate said, the brigade which is at present moving into Catterick would have to go over as well.
Also, a large number of other units and individuals must go over. It is already a formidable task to get that number of men and equipment over there. And it would be virtually impossible, in the length of warning which we expect, to get everything from this country to Germany if we brought it all home now—

Mr. Victory Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman is explaining what a formidable task it would be to get these reserves to Germany in an emergency. How, therefore, does he propose to get regular units from this country to the Far East after 1971 in an emergency?

Mr. Reynolds: We had the defence debates yesterday and the day before, and they will continue after 10 o'clock tonight, so I suggest that we stick to the reserves now, of which the hon. Gentleman could have heard more had he been here a little longer.
I listened with interest to the Liberal Party spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), but I could not help remembering that, when the Government made

the first announcement in December, 1965, of the intended changes in the Reserve Forces, they were warmly welcomed by the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) It was not until he got outside and was set upon by the hon. Members of the Celtic fringe, that their party did a complete somersault. We assume that they will enter the Lobby against us tonight. If a party with so few Members can be swayed by a bit of pressure in the constituencies, I cannot consider that they are taking a serious interest in these matters.
But the main argument tonight came from the hon. Member for Dorset, North, and others—

Mr. James Davidson: If there has been a marginal change in the Liberal Party's attitude towards the Army Reserve since 1965, the fact remains that the whole system of organisation and the composition of Reserve has been changed since 1965, although the hon. Gentleman will agree that there has been nothing like the size of change that has taken place in the Government's attitude.

Mr. Reynolds: If that was a marginal change, I hope that I never see a convulsion in the Liberal Party, a major change of attitude.
The main argument today in favour of the Motion came from the hon. Member for Dorset, North, supported by virtually all other speakers from the Opposition benches. Frankly, I got the impression that they had not caught up with the policy that has been followed in defence matters in this country since the publication of the White Paper in 1957, and even before that. We have relied in Europe on an immediate and massive nuclear response to any assault. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite can grumble at this if they like, but I am stating the policy as put before the House in 1957 by the right hon. Member for Streatham.
It was put forward then and it has been carried on since. First because it is effective and, secondly, because it is cheaper than providing the type of forces that hon. Gentlemen opposite are now trying to persuade us to provide. It was in support of that policy that hon. Gentlemen opposite got rid of National Service and made massive cuts in the Territorial Army—as I say, simply because it


was cheaper to rely entirely on the nuclear deterrent and because they said that we were not going to be fighting a major conventional war in Europe. They accepted, therefore, that we did not need a huge land army and a Territorial Army as such.
The right hon. Member for Harrogate referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as saying that the policy has changed. The answer is that it has. My right hon. Friend has managed to persuade N.A.T.O. to accept the argument which he has been putting forward for some time. But consider the extent of the change. It is said that we will now have a longer conventional war. But hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise that we are talking now, not in terms of an immediate nuclear response, but of a conventional war that might last from one to five days—and not a war that might last for weeks or months.
Many months would be required to take a citizen army, as hon. Gentlemen opposite call it, fully equipped to, for example, France. It is a change, but the change must be measured in days and not weeks or months. Consider the time that it would take to draw together a citizen army, give it the additional training that would be required, and get it across the water to take part in a conventional type of land battle in Europe.

Mr. Goodhart: Was the American Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. McNamara, according to his right hon. Friend, talking absolutely through his hat when he said that the number one priority in Europe was an increased mobilisation base?

Mr. Reynolds: That was in respect of quicker mobilisation. But one can put into action immediately only those troops one has available on the spot, and who are trained and equipped at the time. I am saying that one would not have time to do otherwise. By bringing the T & AVR I and T & AVR II up to date, we are achieving what Mr. McNamara tried to do. Whereas we have not been thwarted in doing this by the Opposition, he was thwarted in doing it by the State Governors when he tried to reorganise his volunteer and reserve forces along these lines. Thus, one can use only what one has available, fully trained and equipped, at the moment when they are required.

But that is not the concept of the citizen army which hon. Gentlemen opposite have propounded.
The most amazing point made by the right hon. Member for Harrogate tonight was his statement about the remarks of an official of the U.S. Defence Department who was here recently. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I, too, heard those remarks. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that he had said that the Russian forces were smaller now than had been previously estimated, so that we were now in better balance with them than was previously thought to be the case. I heard that official make that statement, but I cannot understand how it was possible for the right hon. Gentleman to conclude from it that, because the forces on the other side of the Iron Curtain are smaller than we had estimated. so that we are better balanced, we must have many more reserves than we thought were necessary a few years ago. [Interruption.] That is what we are being asked to do.
The Motion does not criticise us for disbanding the T & AVR III—the sort of thing that the Motion on the disbandment of the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service did—but suggests that we should set up a completely new type of reserve.

Mr. Powell: Surely it follows, if the forces on the other side are that much smaller, that the probable duration of a conventional phase is that much longer, and might be very much longer.

Mr. Reynolds: The forces are the same size as they always were: it is the estimates that have changed. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's contention to a limited extent, but I still measure it only in days, and not in the weeks or the months, the many months that will be necessary to bring into operation the type of forces we are discussing when debating this Motion.
It was on 4th July, 1964, that the right hon. Gentleman who was then Secretary of State for War said, "Generally speaking, our present organisation of the reserves gives us what we want." I do not know who the "we" were, because it did not give the Army what it wanted in the form of reserves, as we very quickly found out.
AER I and AER II provide logistic backup for limited war, but the Territorial Army, although its spirit was good, was not an army, because its divisional headquarters had been abolished. There were 40 Gunner units firing off twelve thousand pounds worth of 25-pounder ammunition per regiment every year. There was an establishment of 190,000 yet, in office, the right hon. Gentleman refused to allow the territorial units to recruit more than 123,000 for, as was publicly announced, financial reasons. When right hon. Members opposite were in office they said that for purely financial reasons they would not allow the Territorial Army to recruit more than 123,000 personnel, though the establishment was 190,000.
The units were badly equipped, despite anything that hon. Members opposite may say. And the right hon. Gentleman will know from his meetings with the Territorial Army Advisory Council, of which he was chairman, that most of the time was taken up discussing ways and means of getting better equipment for the forces for which he was responsible. He knows that the Territorial Army Reserve, with an establishment of 70,000 men, had fewer than 1,000 men. That establishment of 70,000 was specifically set up when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. Membership of the Territorial Army was declining, the Territorial Army had no properly defined rôle, because the equipment was not there, and because the men did not know what they were to do.
We are now told that we should restore the Territorial Army. When we ask: "What for?", the only answer we

get is that it should be restored as a basis for expansion. In order to expand one needs equipment for the forces employed. The Territorial Army had 115 officers of the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and above. To provide that personnel position again would cost more money, and the equipment would cost a considerable amount of money. Yet we are told to do this by a party which only a few years ago put a financial limit on Territorial Army recruiting.

We are now asked to set up an organisation which will provide military training; and to set up something that everyone who wants to, can join but, as I say, when in office the Opposition put on a limit of 123,000 men. They now promise millions of pounds for a citizen force for which they do not know the rôle, and which would fight on a concept of war, which no one who has studied the matter recently, can accept as viable.

They are prepared to spend millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money because they think it will bring political benefit rather than military strength—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] They are now prepared to pledge themselves to spend millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money, yet when they were in office they refused to provide even combat suits for members of the Territorial Army at a cost of £8 per suit. In Opposition, they want millions to be spent in this way yet, when they were in Government, they would not find the money for combat suits to allow the Territorial Army to do its job properly.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 200.

Division No. 85.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bryan, Paul
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Astor, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
Doughty, Charles


Baker, W. H. K.
Campbell, Cordon
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Balniel, Lord
Channon, H. P. G.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eden, Sir John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Bessell, Peter
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Emery, Peter


Biffen, John
Cordie, John
Errington, Sir Eric


Biggs-Davison, John
Corfield, F. V.
Eyre, Reginald


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Costain, A. P.
Farr, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fisher, Nigel


Blaker, Peter
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Fortescue, Tim


Boardman, Tom
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Foster, Sir John


Body, Richard
Currie, G. B. H.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dalkeith, Earl of
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dance, James
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Glyn, Sir Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J, B.




Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Goodhew, Victor
Loveys, W. H.
Royle, Anthony


Gower, Raymond
Lubbock, Eric
Russell, Sir Ronald


Grant, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott, Nicholas


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin
Smith, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray
Stainton, Keith


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stodart, Anthony


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mott-Radclyfte, Sir Charles
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Teeling, Sir William


Hastings, Stephen
Murton, Oscar
Temple, John M.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Tilney, John


Heseltine, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzce, W. R.


Hill, J. E. B.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Holland, Philip
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hooson, Emlyn
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Walters, Dennis


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Jopling, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Webster, David


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, R. Bonner
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kershaw, Anthony
Pounder, Rafton
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kirk, Peter
Prior, J. M. L.
Worsley, Marcus


Kitson, Timothy
Pym, Francis
Wright, Esmond


Lambton, Viscount
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wylie, N. R.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Younger, Hn. George


Lane, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Jasper More and 




Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Delargy, Hugh
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Alldritt, Walter
Dickens, James
Henig, Stanley


Allen, Scholefield
Dobson, Ray
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Anderson, Donald
Doig, Peter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Archer, Peter
Dunnett, Jack
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hoy, James


Bence, Cyril
Ellis, John
Huckfield, Leslie


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
English, Michael
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Ensor, David
Hunter, Adam


Blackburn, F.
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hynd, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Colin (B'house &amp; Spenb'gh)


Booth, Albert
Finch, Harold
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Boyden, James
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Brooks, Edwin
Foley, Maurice
Judd, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Brown, Bob (Nc'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ford, Ben
Lawson, George


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Cant, R. B.
Freeson, Reginald
Lee, John (Reading)


Carmichael, Neil
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gardner, Tony
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ginsburg, David
Lipton, Marcus


Coleman, Donald
Gourlay, Harry
Lomas, Kenneth


Concannon, J. D.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Loughlin, Charles


Conlan, Bernard
Gregory, Arnold
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McCann, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacColl, James


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Macdonald, A. H.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hamling, William
McGuire, Michael


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hannan, William
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harper, Joseph
Mackintosh, John P.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Harrison, Valter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Haseldine, Norman
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hattersley, Roy
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hazell, Bert
MacPherson, Malcolm




Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Park, Trevor
Swain, Thomas


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Swingler, Stephen


Manuel, Archie
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Thornton, Ernest


Mapp, Charles
Pavitt, Laurence
Tinn, James


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Pentland, Norman
Tomney, Frank


Mendelson, J. J.
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Randall, Harry
Watkins, David (Consett)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rankin, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Reynolds, G. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Whitaker, Ben


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Murray, Albert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Neal, Harold
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Newens, Stan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Norwood, Christopher
Rose, Paul
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ogden, Eric
Sheldon, Robert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


O'Malley, Brian
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Orbach, Maurice
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Winnick, David


Orme, Stanley
Silkin, Rt, Hn. John (Deptford)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Woof, Robert


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Slater, Joseph
Yates, Victor


Padley, Walter
Small, William



Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Snow, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Paget, R. T.
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Mr. Neil McBride.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and that the proceedings on Vote A of the Defence (Army) Estimates, 1968–69, may be entered upon and proceeded wish at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of two hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Healey.]

Supply again considered.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1968–69, VOTE A

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 224,500, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969.

10.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): I ask leave to speak again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We have just spent five hours and more discussing the Reserves. We now have rather less than two hours left to us in which to cover the ground to which the whole of the Estimates debate is usually devoted. The total of Army Votes for 1968–69 is £600¾ million. This is about £15½ million less than for the present year, after allowing for the Winter and Spring Supplementary Estimates. The figure for the coming year takes account of the Army's share of the reduction of £110 million in defence expenditure for 1969 which my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 18th November. This total means that we expect to absorb the effects of devaluation, higher prices and other costs which have risen. We expect also to absorb the military redundancy payments resulting from the planned reduction of the Army.
The Estimate does not reflect the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16th January, except for a cut in the provision for the T & AVR III. Apart from this exception, the changes will not affect the Army's requirement for funds in 1968–69. I expect their effect to start

to make itself felt in a substantial way in 1969–70.
When I introduced the Army Estimates a year ago, I had been in my present appointment for a matter of a few weeks. Since then, I have been able to visit many units, training depots and schools in this country and abroad. I have seen the Army training in the field at home and overseas. As a result of my experience, I can now, quite objectively, pay a great tribute to the courage, skill, devotion and unfailing good humour with which the Army has carried out its many and varied tasks in the last 12 months. I am sure that the House will agree that these qualities were undoubtedly seen at their best in South Arabia last year. The last of our forces left Aden on 29th November. The withdrawal was completed in perfect order and without casualties and was a magnificent example of an orderly and well planned operation. Throughout the period leading up to independence, our forces maintained authority by their rofessional skill, used always with patience, restraint and courage. Inevitably, there were casualties both among our own troops and among the civilian population, but it is a great tribute to our men that these were not very much greater than they were.
In June of last year the South Arabian Army relieved us up-country, and from then until independence we were concentrated in Aden town. Here our troops faced great difficulties, for their opponents were often indistinguishable from innocent bystanders and it would have been only too easy for law and order to break down with tragic consequences, not least for the people of South Arabia. That this did not happen was, in great measure, due to the British Army. The House will agree that our soldiers in South Arabia added another chapter to the Army's proud record of achievement in most difficult conditions.
In the Far East theatre, the garrison in Hong Kong supported the local Government and police in combating the Communist campaign aimed at frightening the population and thus weakening the Government's position and undermining business confidence in the Colony.

Mr. Cranky Onslow: On a point of order. May the House have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The time for debate on the issues before us


is strictly limited, and you will be aware that the Minister is rehearsing much of the material which has already been presented to the House in the Defence White Paper. If you check with the documents, you will find that I am correct in this. I appeal to the Minister, through you, to allow Members who still wish to intervene in the debate as much time as possible to do so, and to avoid unnecessary repetition as far as he can.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I have no power to intervene. It is open to the Minister in moving Vote A to do it in his own way.

Mr. Boyden: I am well aware of the shortage of time, and I propose to make my remarks as short as possible. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would wish to be associated with me in paying tribute to what the Army has done in places of difficulty, such as Arabia and Hong Kong.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: We do not have to have you to do it for us.

Mr. Boyden: That is an incredible statement from the hon. Gentleman, that the Army Minister is not expected in the annual debate on the Army Vote in this House to pay tribute to the Army on behalf of the country. I resent that remark very much indeed. Not only some hon. Members but the Army and the public which is interested in the Army wish to hear my speech.

Mr. Goodhew: The Minister was suggesting that hon. Members on this side of the House were not prepared to pay tribute to the Services. All we were saying was that we had done so in the past and were always prepared to do so and do not need any lessons from the hon. Gentleman. Since he seems to have no support for the Estimates he is moving, would not it be more appropriate for him to abandon the whole operation?

Mr. Boyden: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's condensation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Condensation?"] Yes. He has come to earth.
In Hong Kong the terrorists did not hesitate to resort to murder and the in

discriminate use of bombs, which often killed or maimed innocent civilians. After an incident in which five policemen were killed, the Army took over responsibility for frontier security. There were many border incidents, all of which demanded considerable professional skill and discipline from the British and Gurkha soldiers there. The Army also assisted the local police in cordon duties and bomb disposal. No praise is too high for the coolness and courage of the men of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the Gurkha Engineers, who dealt with many bombs and booby traps in Hong Kong last year. As the House knows, some were killed or injured.
As the Statement on the Defence Estimates makes clear, the foundation of Britain's security now, as always, lies in the maintenance of peace in Europe. Our support for the North Atlantic Alliance must, therefore, be as full and positive as we can make it. The British Army of the Rhine is our ground force contribution to the alliance, and better trained and equipped fighting troops are nowhere to be found.
As we withdraw from other parts of the world and increasingly concentrate our defence effort on Europe, I do not doubt that, in the longer term, we shall be able to improve the terms on which we commit our ground forces to N.A.T.O. This will not mean a greater number of troops on the Continent but it will mean that, given the political warning we expect of any intentions or aggression in Europe and with modern transport capability, we shall be able to regard the forces in this country and in Europe much more as one force available for use on the Continent should the need arise.
The details have yet to be worked out, but I am confident that our allies in Europe will be able to count on the British Army even more than they have done in the past. Towards this end, there has been created the new Army Strategic Command, responsible for most of the field force formations and units in the United Kingdom. This will lead to a higher standard of operational efficiency. The new arrangements will also produce manpower savings, some of which have already been achieved. We propose to look at further changes in the command structure in the United Kingdom to see


whether we can go further in this direction.
The basis of the British Army's success is good training, and for training, and as battle techniques develop, computers come in more and more. The Field Artillery Computer Equipment—known as "FACE"—will be issued to training units in the United Kingdom in the coming year. This brings the computer to the battlefield.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: To what Vote is the hon. Gentleman referring and what is the size of the Estimate? Perhaps he will tell us so that we can follow his argument in justifying them.

Mr. Boyden: As the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, it is in the Statement on Defence and I am developing what I said last year about this aspect.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought we were discussing Vote A and not the Defence Statement. Will you give some guidance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are discussing Vote A, which is the size of the Army, and there must be many statements in the Defence White Paper which are relevant to the question the House has to decide on Vote A.

Mr. Boyden: Last year, when I mentioned this subject, I was challenged because it was claimed that I was looking too far ahead. Now I am dealing with something that is actually happening. Not only in training for defence, but in the more mundane domestic area of training, one of the things I am proud to have seen is the excellent way in which the Army deals with training at all levels.
The Army is very self-critical of its tests and examinations. It is very critical of its own methods of selection. It has succeeded, in the course of this year, despite the complications of the need to train for all sorts of difficult apparatus—that is why I mentioned FACE, for example—in maintaining the level of cost as before. In other words, it is training better on more complicated apparatus, and doing it within a very good control cost system.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: To what extent does my hon.

Friend feel that this will further the good will of this country and the good will and relationships between this country and other nations? Does he really feel that this sort of expenditure is going to help humanity?

Mr. Boyden: A party of Royal Engineers has gone to Beef Island, in the Virgin Islands, to build an airstrip. This will give them valuable training and will also help the local population increase their tourist trade. That is a very good example of the way training facilities will develop beyond the actual facilities of the British Army, producing good results for the civilian population. I wish to say something about this aspect and am shortly concluding my speech, which will obviously please hon. Members. I want to say something about the development of this aspect of relations between the Army and the civil population. The Army has always had a good reputation and has been anxious to assist the civil population. The example of the work in Beef Island is a good example of the sort of thing which has been going on overseas for some years.
I have been chairing a committee of officials in the Ministry to see in what way we can further the assistance which our forces stationed in this country are able to give the civil community. We have made considerable progress in simplifying the ideas and procedures and we hope that it will become a regular feature of all the training activities of units in this country that, when they do their training, they will often leave behind something which is of physical value to the civil population.

Mr. James Ramsden: Will there be a modification of the Defence Council instruction which, if my recollection is right, considerably restricts the amount of help that can be given?

Mr. Boyden: Yes. This is one of the things that we are dealing with now. We propose to make it easier for local authorities and other Government Departments to understand exactly what the procedure will be, and the same applies to the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made in relation to forces.
Already there has been a very encouraging response to this in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has raised this with


me on previous occasions, and I am very hopeful that this particular activity will do something to meet the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) raised with me. The equipment that the Army has been receiving during the year has brought it up to strength. Two more armoured regiments have been equipped with Chieftain; the delivery of tracked A.P.C.s gave infantry battalions their full entitlement, and there has also been a considerable delivery of self-propelled guns, which will greatly increase the mobile fire-power of B.A.O.R.
The increasing mobility of the battle group will be matched by supporting vehicles with an equally good cross-country performance, in the shape of a tracked fitters vehicle for R.E.M.E. and further deliveries of the Stalwart high mobility load carrier. All in all I should like to report at this stage that the equipment of the Army during the year has been very much improved and increased, the training has gone from strength to strength, the actual operations in which the Army has been engaged overseas have reflected very great credit on it, and I hope that we shall hear from hon. Members opposite, perhaps for a change, some favourable things about the state of the Army and what it is doing.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I would not have spoken except for some remarks made by the Minister of Defence for Administration at the end of his speech, in which he went back to the idea that one does not need any Army reserves, Territorial or otherwise, provided one can blow up enough women and children. This seems to be profoundly foolish and immoral. It stems from what the Secretary of State said in the last defence debate, that it was much more preferable to have a nuclear exchange than a prolonged conventional war.
God Almighty! The evil, the nonsense, the swinish degradation in that statement I find impossible to swallow. How hon. Gentlemen opposite, after all that they said before 1964, can stand the idea that one need not have conventional forces because one can blow up the women and children I do not know. It is impossible to believe.
The whole basis of military thinking, after Dulles, has been moving inevitably towards the idea that it is the conventional forces that matter. There has not been a day since the end of the war that has not shown this. We have had Vietnam and Nigeria and other places where the history of the world has been changed by conventional forces, not by nuclear exchanges. In the conventional war the state of one's reserves are obviously absolutely vital.
By these last measures relating to the T & AVR III we are taking steps to weaken our possibility of building up the conventional army in an emergency. This is what I feel most strongly about in the Government's policy. The Secretary of State for Defence sits there with his great blotchy face constantly wreathed in smiles when he is caught out in yet another contradiction, another mistake. He is perfectly right to be amused. He is amused because people, the fools, believe what he has said, sworn or unsworn. That is what we are up against here—somebody who thinks himself immune, because somebody believes what he says. I think we have got to the stage now where nobody will believe a word that the right hon. Gentleman says.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Briefly, on two subjects. As my hon. Friend said, I have had an interview with him, and much correspondence, on the question of the civil uses of the Forces, and I would like to pay tribute to the G.O.C. Scottish Command, General Sir Derek Lang, and to all who work with him in the Ministry and Scottish Command for the experiments which have been done and for the good work which has been done on the storm damage.
I think one should not be naïve about this and suppose that civilian tasks will occupy a major part of the work of the Forces in the future. Perhaps it is possible to harm the case by overstating it. All I say is that a good start has been made. I hope that plans will be developed for worth-while projects which have of necessity some training content, and particularly in Scotland, perhaps in the North of England and in Wales, where there are certain projects which are urgent and where trade unions and


others would certainly welcome projects undertaken by the Forces.
If there is a job to be done at home I think it is also important that a job should t e done abroad and here I would simply ask a specific question of my hon. Friend. On Friday, 1st March, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he had to extend an airfield in the British Solomon Islands, and for what purpose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all the good will in the world, we cannot discuss airfields on the Army Estimates.

Mr. Dalyell: Well, Mr. Speaker, this Question was answered by my hon. Friend who is on the Government Front Bench; that Question was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and I would imagine that it was within his jurisdiction. Briefly, the point simply is this; why put in the Defence Review a project which apparently, according to the Answer I got, involves one officer and two n.c.o.s?

Mr. Speaker: With all the good will in the world again, we are not discussing the defence review. We are discussing the Army Estimates.

Mr. Dalyell: Then, Mr. Speaker, I turn to Appendix IV on page 117 of the Estimates and I will relate my remarks to the vote for the Chief Scientist (Army). The question which I really want to raise is one general point about the responsibilities of the Chief Scientist. It would be improper and I do not wish to go into the detailed work of the Select Committee on which I serve at present examining the D.R.E.s, but I simply want to make the point that many of us will probe throughout the spring and throughout summer the extent to which the Defence Department can operate with other Government Departments to implement the ideas which were first put forward by the Prime Minister when he was Opposition Leader at Scarborough in 1963, namely, that the defence research establishments would be used where possible for civilian research.
I do not want to take up the time of the House on details but I refer to one establishment for which, I understand, the Chief Scientist has some responsibility, the Microbiological Research

Establishment at Porton. I asked this of the Secretary of State today, 6th March,
Why he gave instructions that the British Broadcasting Corporation, having made formal arrangements to make an hour-long television programme of activity at the Microbiological Research Centre at Porton, should be refused permission to enter the Microbiological Research Establishment, Porton.
I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said:
Permission has now been granted to the B.B.C. to go ahead with this programme.
I think that this is a wise decision. Perhaps it is the thin edge of a justifiable wedge.
I do not think that any Government—Conservative or Labour—have be wicked about this matter. I am sure that both the M.R.E. and the C.D.E. are used basically for defensive purposes. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) that if offensive weapons have been developed, I am convinced that that has been done simply to test defensive weapons.
In so far as these establishments are defensive—and I believe they are—it seems that they should he open, that they should be put under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health or the M.R.C., and that far more civil work, such as work for the protective clothing industry, a growing industry, should be based on Porton as a civilian research establishment.
I want to raise one related question, and that is the question of classified contracts to universities. I refer to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham on 13th February, 1968; it concerns the Chief Scientist to the Army. The reply was:
The information is available only in respect of those contracts for pure research for defence purposes placed in the period April-December, 1967. 37 such contracts had a security classification."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 334.]
It seems to me that this raises issues for us all, not least for the universities themselves. As my hon. Friend knows, in the United States there was a considerable argument at the University of


Pennsylvania about whether the university should undertake classified contracts.
There is a great deal of sorting out to be done both in relation to M.R.C. and whether it will accept non-classified and classified work, and if so on what terms. The Government ought to have the most serious discussions with the successor to Sir Harold Himsworth who is retiring. They ought to discuss the whole issue afresh. I am not saying that classified work should automatically be excluded from the universities. I am merely saying that this is a subject which should at least be discussed, probed, and gone into, like so many matters affecting defence research establishments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be a subject to discuss, but not on Vote A.

10.38 p.m.

Sir John Eden: I am sure that in introducing this Vote the Minister was sincere in the tributes that he paid to the Army, and I am sorry if he misunderstood the intervention which greeted his remarks. I am sure he knows that everyone in this House wishes to be associated with what he said about the magnificent service which Her Majesty's Forces have given to this country in every theatre in which they have been called upon to perform a tour of duty.
The point which some of us were making, perhaps somewhat irreverently, may have escaped the hon. Gentleman. It is simply that throughout the presentation of a succession of Defence White Papers, throughout a succession of Defence Review policy statements, and throughout the speeches made by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government, it has become apparent that the Government are set upon running down Her Majesty's Forces, that their primary purpose is to reduce the strength and capability of the Forces. That being so, the hon. Gentleman must understand that the praise of a Minister carries comparatively little force, and can have very little meaning. When his political master, the Secretary of State, has so flagrantly turned his back on pledges so recently given, he must not take it personally amiss if those who speak on

behalf of the Government are not taken seriously—

Mr. Speaker: Order. After that exordium, the hon. Gentleman will now come to Vote A, I hope.

Sir J. Eden: There was some altercation between the two sides on this matter over the Under-Secretary's opening shots, Mr. Speaker.
The Vote is concerned primarily with fixing the maximum number of Armed Forces personnel for the coming year. I was trying to show that the effective maintenance of these officers and men depends largely on their confidence in Ministers' administration of their overall responsibilities. It is their inevitable lack of confidence because of the way in which Ministers have discharged those responsibilities which militates directly against the maintenance of effective strength in those Forces.
Anyone who has had dealings with serving men and officers knows how low morale is up and down the regimental ranks, and the Government must answer for that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said in the defence debate, they recently advertised for recruits in an advertisement the language of which was, to say the least, not wholly in accord with the facts. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must understand that if they are to maintain the strength of the forces and get the right volunteers, they must inspire them with confidence that they are determined to maintain the fighting capabilities of the British Army.
Will the hon. Gentleman say something about the details of the Vote? How does he see the future deployment of British Service men in connection with the Trucial and Oman Scouts, after this Government's decision to run out on our obligation to maintain stability and security in the Gulf? Has any undertaking or guarantee of future secure employment been given to them?
The Brigade of Gurkhas was referred to in the defence debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), but the Minister did not then reply to him. We therefore wish to give the hon. Gentleman the chance tonight to deal with some of the points raised. Again, I must express my surprise that since the Minister made


the case that he was solemnly presenting Vote A to the House, he did not go out of his way to answer the points made in the defence debate the other day, which are wholly relevant to this discussion.
What is the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas? Again, I must emphasise that there can be no future unless there is confidence in the word of the Government. In this regard, it is of vital importance. The hon. Gentleman does not need me to recapitulate the delicate state of international relations which exists between Nepal and some of its neighbouring territories. He will know how important it is that those who rule that country can rely upon the word of the Government.
This is a brigade of fighting men who, as every hon. Member will recognise, have served this country magnificently over a very long period of time. Their service has been given in a very special way to the crowned head of the country in person. They have felt a very special and direct link with the crown head—today, Her Majesty the Queen. This is something of such a precious nature in the world today that none of us would wish to see it weakened or cast on one side.
Again, as a result of the Government's arbitrary decision to withdraw from Singapore, difficulties will arise when it comes to determining where the Brigade of Gurkhas is to be stationed and trained, and in what overseas theatres it is to be deployed. Hong Kong does not provide a proper solution to this problem, but since the Minister must agree with this view I am sure that he must have other ideas. His right hon. Friend who visited Nepal and negotiated these arrangements must have spelled out very clearly to the Government of Nepal what is to be the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas.
I emphasise again that this is a very significant fighting element in the British Army. It is a force which can most usefully be deployed, particularly in the Far East theatre but not only there, to defend the cause of freedom when it is challenged, and in whose defence we must be ready to act. It may be that the Brigade of Gurkhas could help in supporting some of our Commonwealth friends in the overall disposition of their military strength. Whatever the position, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take

this present opportunity to spell out quite clearly how he sees the future of this fine fighting force.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Once again I apologise to the Front Bench. I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will understand when I say that I am absent without leave from a Standing Committee upstairs.
Over the last two days in the defence debate we have discussed the strategy of our defence system. We have been discussing the new role of the Army and its equipment, nuclear tactical weapons, trip wires, bombing theories, ballistic missiles—everything but the men who are to man the new sophisticated weapons we have put, or are to put, into their use. I congratulate the Secretary of State on getting priorities in the right order—I do not care by what devious route, so long as we have arrived—and the rôle of the British Army settled.
Rather heavy weather has been made of the withdrawal of a brigade from the B.A.O.R. With the transfer of facilities at our disposal, there will be the usual diplomatic trouble, but this trouble in B.A.O.R. will not spring up overnight and the redeployment will not be of a worrying nature. With Germany, as it were, just over the river, it is right that the strategic reserve should be placed under the command of N.A.T.O.
My second point relates to the sheer professionalism of our Forces. Now we have got the role and commitments into the right order and an Army of the right size to carry out those commitments, we must aim for an Army which is better trained, better equipped and better looked after than ever before. Never again should we have our Forces in the state they were in in the fifties. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) spoke of the morale of the forces. The morale of the forces in the fifties was lower than for a considerable time. I was a member of the forces then and I know that they were under-manned, badly equipped, badly paid and completely over-stretched. If their morale had been rather higher, I would probably still be in the Brigade of Guards in a sentry box down the road.

Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Member is making a serious charge. If what he says


is true, how does he explain that recruiting then and re-engagement then was very much better than it is now? Apparently there was some satisfaction then among those in the forces.

Mr. Concannon: Once one has signed on as I did, one has to like it or lump it and see the time out. I congratulate the Minister on seeing that the Army is in a good state and that the Territorial Army is now better equipped and trained than ever before. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said yesterday:
We shall need 35,000 young men a year who will have to be physically fit, mentally alert and have above average intelligence in order to enable us to carry out these commitments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 267.]
It worries me because in this age of computers and sophisticated weapons the story of the weekend about the British Army was centred around 41 junior guardsmen who "did a bunk". I was glad to hear that they returned to barracks, because I have slowly become an "Ombudsman" for disgruntled Servicemen and I half expected to have 41 guardsmen to tea on Sunday.
What has the British Army in the age of sophisticated weapons to do with highly polished boots? We have junior soldiers who, in the words of an hon. Member yesterday, should have been trained to such a pitch that they are the nucleus of a modern Army, but we visualise these "physically fit, mentally alert" highly trained young men sitting cross-legged on their beds like a row of Beatles having a day of transcendental meditation with the maharishi disguised as an n.c.o. passing his verdict on a row of shining boots.
If we are to have a modern Army, we must give up these 19th-century attitudes. When I visited Israel after the troubles, I never once saw a pair of shiny boots. I am sure that the Viet Cong never indulge in shiny boots parades. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not give me the old story about discipline, because I had that thrown at me many a time in the Guards. If the House believes that, it should instruct the Chief Whip to order 600 pairs of boots and a ton of boot polish, share them out, and let us all get cracking.
If we are to have a modern Army, we must give it proper training and schedules as befit a modern Army. Only when we have rid ourselves of 19th-century attitudes and brought ourselves truly up to date shall we have a modern Army befitting a modern country.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I wish to refer to one item in the Vote. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us what progress, if any, has been made with the inter-Service rationalisation of repairs? There is only one short reference to it in Chapter 3, page 24, of the Defence White Paper, and there is, naturally, no real mention of it in Vote A. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that a most important experiment has been conducted in my constituency.
The 25 Command Workshops in Gains-borough have been the first Army unit asked to carry out B vehicle repairs for the Royal Air Force. Is the Under-Secretary of State prepared to tell us what progress, if any, has been made with B vehicle repair rationalisation between all three Services?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this comes under Vote A.

Mr. Kimball: It does, Mr. Speaker, because it directly relates to the strength of R.E.M.E. Command. It is astonishing that, before a full assessment of this inter-Service experiment has been made, the R.E.M.E. Command at York has decided that a serious cut-back must now be made in the number of civilians employed in R.E.M.E. Command. What is so extraordinary is that this decision about the level of employment in R.E.M.E. Command should have been taken before anyone in R.E.M.E. Command knew the result of the inter-Service committee's work on the rationalisation of repairs.
The redundancy notices were handed out at the depot before a conference had been called to tell the R.E.M.E. Command what the assessment of the experiment was. The notices were issued at the end of January, and yet the first the brigadier in command of R.E.M.E. knew about the effect of the assessment was a conference called on 5th March. That cannot give anyone in R.E.M.E. Command any great confidence about the various experiments which are being


carried out in the hope of prolonging the life of the Command and making proper se of the facilities available.
Does the Minister himself know what assessment has been by the Royal Air Force of the future of its own repair flights?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to sound like Shylock and say that I cannot find it in the bond, but I am certain that I cannot find the Royal Air Force in this Army Vote A.

Mr. Kimball: Mr. Speaker, this is an experiment in which Army officers and men are being used to fulfil a commitment to the Royal Air Force. The trouble is that a cut is being made in the number of Army officers and men employed on this Vote before proper assessment has been made of what the Royal Air Force demand is. It is an experiment in inter-Service repairs, and a decision has been taken without a proper assessment having been given by the R.A.F. What is more, the decision has been taken to cancel facilities which are available in an area where the Army is weak and the Royal Air Force is strong.
Even worse, the decision is being taken to create a large number of redundancies among Army employees in my constituency and to continue to divert Army work to the R.E.M.E. depot at York where unemployment is low, despite the efforts of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, where housing is expensive, and where there is a great demand for other labour. That is the position which applies in Gainsborough today.
Redundancies are being created in a depot which is very well placed to help the Army out of its difficulties on R.E.M.E. repair work. It is one of the few Army depots in the middle of a countryside which is totally monopolised by the Royal Air Force, an Army depot in an area where there is very little civilian competition for labour.
Great hardship is attached to this decision, because the Army moved into Lincolnshire because labour was available and housing was cheap. The tragedy of the decision to close down the R.E.M.E. depot in my constituency is that although the people in question are established civil servants, they have no hope of getting a job elsewhere. Housing is still

cheap in Lincolnshire. In the area where the present R.E.M.E. depots are being maintained, it is extremely expensive. There is no hope of anybody selling his house in Lincolnshire and moving into Yorkshire or down to Banbury, Bicester or the other R.E.M.E. depot centres.
The employment position in Gains-borough, thanks to the efforts of hon. Members opposite, is worse than it ever has been since I represented that constituency. It has got worse and worse during the last four months. The employment position at York seems to be extremely good. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not take into account any political considerations when they decide about the employment of civilian personnel within the Army. Could it be that York is a very marginal seat? The last thing that anybody could say is that Gainsborough is a marginal seat.
I would also like the Under-Secretary of State to tell us the position concerning the Chieftain tank. I understand that that tank is manufactured principally at Leeds and in Northumberland and that it has to be transported to the Royal Armoured Corps units on Salisbury Plain and at Catterick by the Royal Corps of Transport, the depot of which is at Ranby, in Nottinghamshire.
Nobody will argue that that depot is not well placed. It is right on the edge of the main new trunk roads, the A.1 and the motorway, and it is close to the centres of manufacture. The importance to my constituency of Ranby, however, is that the tank transporters cannot work without the R.E.M.E. depot at Gains-borough. A decision to run down that depot cannot be taken until we have a proper assessment of the future role of the Royal Corps of Transport depot at Ranby.
I fully realise that once a decision to run down the Territorial Army was taken, the future of the R.E.M.E. depot at Gainsborough was in doubt. I am very conscious that when I was in the Territorial Army, I used to ensure quite a lot of winter work for my constituents by the amount of kit we used to damage at summer camp or failed to maintain during our winter week-ends. So that from the time that the Territorial Army began to be robbed of its equipment, I have always been aware that the depot


in my constituency was in a precarious state.
As I understand it, however, there has been a rethink on the Territorial Army. A lot of the vehicles and equipment have to be kept—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have debated the Territorial Army earlier today.

Mr. Kimball: This is in direct relation to the equipment being put on a care and maintenance basis, Mr. Speaker. Even if it is on a care and maintenance basis, it must be brought to Gainsborough at least every two or three years even to be kept up to that standard.
My only other question to the Under-Secretary is to ask whether he is determined to help and to try to keep the depot at Gainsborough, bearing in mind that there is no possible alternative employment for his skilled employees there. What steps is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take to look round for alternative workloads for this depot?
The Under-Secretary may get a bonus because the Government have decided to shift this way or that on the issue of the Territorial Army. There are some vehicles to be kept after all, even on a care and maintenance basis. Civil defence vehicles are being drawn into central stores. Even in central stores, they must be looked at every so often. Can they still continue to come to Gains-borough?
What other sources of damaged vehicles is the Minister going to look for? Could not the Minister of Housing and Local Government be approached to see what fire vehicles could come to Gains-borough? The Army has all the equipment to repair these vehicles. Could not the Minister find a use for this depot, rather than close it down and so take a decision which, in the opinion of everybody in the area, will have been hastily taken and is ill-considered, and in respect of which no proper consultation has been gone through so far?

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Vote A calls for 224,500 men for the Army for the coming year. I argue that this is too many. I cannot say precisely to what extent it is too many, because the traditional Amendment, which, for

many years, it has been the custom of the House to discuss, is not being called. I regret that fact and reserve the right to refer to it at a later stage, because in my opinion it takes from hon. Members the right to question the number of soldiers required for the Forces—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is speaking in ignorance of what has happened. If he had been in the House earlier in the day he would have known that Mr. Speaker had said that if the hon. Member succeeded in catching Mr. Speaker's eye he could move the Amendment in his name on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult to be in the Chamber all through the day. I am glad that the traditional right has been maintained—not for myself but probably for other hon. Members at different times. This is a traditional right, and I am glad and relieved to know—

Mr. Speaker: Lest the hon. Member should claim too much as of right—the power of the Chair is to select Amendments.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I do not doubt that—but it is the duty of hon. Members to protect the interests of other hon. Members. I merely assert that because I think it is very important. As I shall be called to maintain the rights of hon. Members in the future, long after you and I have departed, Mr. Speaker, I shall formally move the Amendment in my name. I argue that the requirement for 224,500 men is too much, and that this number is not necessary for the defence of life and property in this country. I say that this manpower is being misused and that it would be far better employed in other directions at home than in the various places abroad where our troops are now stationed.
I suggest that at the present time our people need protection through the police force and the prison service, and that many of the men required for the Army are trained men who, sooner or later, will come out of the forces into civilian life and into the services which I have mentioned. I have had this argument with the Army Ministers more than once. The lives and property of our people in this time of crime and violence are far more important, and these soldiers should


be out of the Army and in the police force and the prisons service.
If this proposition is not acceptable to the Minister—who argues that they should be permanently in the Army—I suggest that these men should be given leave to come out of the Army, and that as long as we have this wave of crime and violence in London and other parts of the country the first priority is not the Army in Germany—

Miss J. M. Quennell: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. He is not reluctant to intervene in other hon. Member's speeches. How does he propose to persuade the soldiers that he is going to release from the Army to go into the police force and the prison service? Suppose they do not want to?

Mr. Hughes: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Lady. If there could be placed in the depots in Germany, and anywhere else where the British Army personnel are now stationed, notices stating that Servicemen will be given an opportunity to serve in the police or the prison service, I believe that without the exercise of compulsion we would get the men who are needed more in those services than they are in Germany or Hong Kong and such places. I am not suggesting that they should be brought out compulsorily. We should ask for volunteers. I understand that one murder is committed every week in Glasgow, as well as numerous other crimes of violence, because there are insufficient men in the police force, and I am sure that the men in the Scottish regiments would volunteer to serve their country where they are most needed, defending their kith and kin against the thug, the bandit and the robber—

Mr. Anthony Royle: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is not giving way.

Mr. Hughes: I will give way later, but I want to finish this part of my argument. I wish to emphasise that the men serving in the military police in Germany are needed more in the prison service of the country. A fortnight ago I visited the largest prison in Scotland and

I found the prison officer strength was 50 short. That is a serious situation, and we should recruit the necessary prison staff from the military police in Germany and other places where our soldiers are stationed.

Mr. A. Royle: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I have been following his argument carefully. I have been puzzled by one aspect of his argument concerning the police. He is anxious to expand the police in this country because of the crime wave which he alleges is getting worse. How does he square this up with what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department says, namely, that he is going to cut down recruitment in the police?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to depart from this Vote into a debate on the Home Office.

Mr. Hughes: No, Mr. Speaker. I can resist everything except temptation when it comes in the form of an interruption. But I am talking about Vote A, and I will not be diverted from that Vote. I am suggesting that the number of our soldiers is too high and that it would be possible, without damaging our military effectiveness, to transfer some of them home, either on leave or on pension, in order that they could do more necessary work. I hope that I shall get a more sympathetic answer from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, of whom I have high hopes, than I got from his hon. Friend earlier.
I want now to raise another point. I agree entirely with what has been said about the Gurkhas. That may be thought a strange thing for me to say, but the Gurkhas who come within Vote A—and I am keeping strictly within order in this—have given good service to this country. They deserve to be treated considerately and compassionately if their brigade is to be disbanded. I may well be asked what is my constructive suggestion. I would say that if the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) would accept the proposition that these men would be welcomed in Bournemouth and would not be regarded merely as coloured immigrants, and if he would


say, "Yes, we are prepared to take 50,000 Gurkhas whom the landladies of Bourne mouth will welcome", then I would warmly support him. I would then hope that it would not be said, "We will keep the Gurkhas out because they have brown skins".
The Minister, in his opening remarks, referred also to Hong Kong. We have large numbers of troops in Hong Kong, and I am not sure that the Minister is right in describing the island as a possession of the Crown. I may be historically wrong, but I was under the impression that Hong Kong was leased by some former government of China under an agreement with us, and also that that lease is going to expire. We should, therefore, reconsider this commitment of keeping troops in Hong Kong. The number of men coming within Vote A who are in Hong Kong should begin to be reduced.
What is the position in Hong Kong? It is true no doubt, as the Minister said, that the troops did a service to the community there, and I am in no doubt about their serving the interests of this country well. At the same time, I do not think that we can continue to keep a considerable army in Hong Kong if the situation should get worse than it has been. We are in Hong Kong on sufferance, by permission of the Chinese, and if the Chinese Government decided to take the Colony, it would be a very difficult operation from the purely military point of view to hold Hong Kong. For instance, the water supply depends upon supplies on the mainland, and if the Chinese Government should take it into its head to turn off the water, then it would be an extremely difficult proposition to keep our soldiers in the Colony.
If only Her Majesty's Government looked on this matter from the point of view of reducing the number of troops—and from the point of view, incidentally, of saving some money—we could come to an understanding and negotiate with the Chinese Government. To talk of keeping soldiers there for military operations is, to me, absolute nonsense. They would be sacrificed for something which could never be done. I could say the same thing about Singapore, but I want to give an opportunity for other hon. Members to speak. My point is that

this number of men, when this country is in the economic state that it is, and this huge sum of £600 million, is something which this country cannot afford. I protest, and say that this Vote ought to be reduced.

11.20 p.m.

Miss J. M. Quennell: It is something of a coincidence that, almost exactly a year ago, when we had a similar debate on a similar Vote, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke just before me and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) spoke just after me. At this hour it is not possible, and would not be welcome to hon. Members, to embark on a lengthy speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Lady, but perhaps the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will tell me whether he moved his Amendment or not.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move,
That the said number be reduced by 1,000 men.

Miss Quennell: I want to raise two points. The first is one which perhaps the Under-Secretary of State can deal with by regulation, for it refers to the payment of pensions of other ranks. This is normally done by postal order on a weekly basis. The pensioner has to collect payment from the post office. Former serving officers can have their pensions paid through a bank, but that system is not extended to other ranks even if they have had a bank account for years.
This regulation probably goes back into the ancient past when the banking system was not so extensively developed. But today banking facilities are widely accessible and fully available all over the country. There has also been a great change in the type of personnel in the Army itself and it seems absurd that this regulation should continue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at this to see whether the regulation can be amended so that, if other ranks express their wish for it to be done, their pensions can be paid direct into their bank accounts.
The second point is much more substantial. I raised it a year ago on the same Vote. On that occasion, the debate was based on the assumption of withdrawal from the Far East by the mid-1970s. Now there is to be a much accelerated withdrawal, expected to be completed by 1971. A year ago, I drew the hon. Gentleman's attention to problems which would be created unless his Ministry succeeded in establishing clear lines of communication with the various local authorities in whose areas camps were set up to which the men from overseas would be repatriated.
The nub of the problem, I pointed out, lies in maintaining good relations between the Army and the local authorities, and plans should be considered well in advance of the arrival of the men and their families before a strain was placed upon local authority services. Warning is needed on this, to make adequate provision. The White Paper anticipates an accelerated withdrawal of forces and contemplates completion by 1971, not the mid-1970s. We have only three years to consider the practical consequences of the repatriation of large numbers of men. Paragraph 12 of the White Paper refers to withdrawal in 1971. Paragraph 19 anticipated a concurrent run-down of the strength of the Services and implied that these would be harmoniously and smoothly timed and married together.
The implication, one hopes, will become a reality. In the Statement on The Defence Estimates, page 65, paragraph 21 there is a frank confesion that:
The detailed plans that had been worked out following the reductions announced in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy, 1967, are now being revisesd to take account of the accelerated rundown…it is not yet possible to be precise…
about prospects. All one can say, broadly speaking, is that the problems that I outlined last year will be accentuated and accelerated by the increase in rundown. By their nature, Army camps are situated in rural districts and administrative counties, less well endowed with rateable value sources. They do not have big conurbations. These are the authorities most likely to be embarrassed by sudden demands to extend services and they are the most vulnerable to the retrenchment recently announced.
A year ago I asked the Minister some questions relating to the solutions of the

problem that his Department had tried to work out. He was not very encouraging in his reply. He said that any assistance from the Exchequer would have to be provided through the normal machinery of local government finance. He said that he would be writing to me, and he did but I had clearly failed to make the point clear because in his letter he admitted that a temporary shortage of privately-built houses could result. He said:
We hope that this will be overcome by revising future private building development.
When the Army Lands Department buys a large number of privately-built houses in an area, and holds them vacant for many months the consequence is that the number of houses for private purchase is reduced. The Minister suggested that the shortage created could be overcome by revising the future private building development. I failed to make my point clear—it is the fault of the speaker and not the listener. A local authority has no means of knowing who is buying private houses in its district. A local authority cannot possibly revise its future building development, since the planning authority must be appraised three years ahead of future military requirements.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What the local authority does about the problem that the hon. Lady is raising does not come under this Vote.

Miss Quennell: This is in connection with the activities of the Lands Department, which comes under this Vote. When the Lands Department operates or buys houses for the Army—quite rightly—there are consequent effects in those localities. All I seek to ask the Under-Secretary is that he should reconsider the channels of communication which he has in contemplation for allowing local authorities to know what his Department has in mind in order that it can make proper provision for the troops.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions in connection with the Vote? Does the accelerated withdrawal east of Suez mean that the release of War Department land will now either be retarded or stopped? Secondly, in connection with redundancies, do the accelerated withdrawals mean that redundancies already planned will now either be retarded or cancelled?
These are points which I sought to make a year ago, and while I do not think they are quite so emotionally of importance perhaps as the reduction of the Brigade of Gurkhas and the Oman Scouts and certain other units of the Army, nevertheless they will be of great importance if we in this country are to accommodate, smoothly and without irritation to the citizens of the country, a larger standing army than we have had in the country before.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not comment on her remarks, because I want to oppose my hon. Friend's Amendment and make a few points on Vote A and the size of the forces. One of the best conditions by which to attract men, whether to industry or commerce or the Defence Services, or the police services is stability of the career structure. I think that that is what everyone seeks today. The Armed Forces require peculiar skills and peculiar qualities and whereas in commerce or industry the career possibilities are spread across a large number of multifarious occupations and functions, in the defence Services that is not so. One of the most vital conditions in the Services must be the career structure. This applies not only to officers but to other ranks as well. Officers and men entering the forces must feel that there is open to them a stable career structure. This is absolutely vital. I do not think we can create really viable Armed Forces to play their part in the defence of the western world unless we can attract to them men of the highest quality, and one of the means of attracting them is to offer them some security in their career and the prospect of a career for their working life.
Many years ago, probably before my lifetime, or until the early part of my lifetime, the training at military institutions, such as cadet colleges and Sandhurst, was a training which was unique and could be used only by the Forces. This has become and is becoming less true. The Army's institutions for educating and preparing men for their careers in Her Majesty's Forces produce very useful and valuable men, who supply valuable

manpower for other purposes when they leave the Forces.
I know a young man who was at the Mons Cadet School at Aldershot. The education and training that he received there gave him qualities of leadership which he has been able to exercise in the industrial complex which he has entered. He puts the value of his training above that which he received at a public school. I have never been prone to supporting military regimes, but this lad is a shining example of the kind of training provided at that school.
I hope that the Government's decision to cut our defence forces has not been taken unilaterally. I hope that it has been taken after consultation with our friends and allies who, like ourselves, want to defend our Western civilisation. I think that in the modern world it is wrong to take decisions without consulting one's friends and allies.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not widen the debate. We are discussing Vote A of the Army Estimates.

Mr. Bence: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has tabled an Amendment to reduce the Vote by 1,000 men, and I am saying that our contribution to the defence of the Western world should be fixed in consultation with our friends and allies.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for my hon. Friend's single-mindedness, but I cannot understand his motives in tabling this Amendment. He says that in this country there are thugs, burglars, and violators of property, and therefore we should take 1,000 men from the forces to deal with them. What he forgets is that in the world in which we live there are also thugs, burglars, and violators of property, and that we as a nation must be prepared to play our part in deterring these people from indulging in acts of brigandry. We must have an Army to deter these international brigands and vagabonds. I do not understand the logic of my hon. Friend's case.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Who is the international brigand?

Mr. Bence: We do not know. If our police force could bring evidence against the crooks in this country, we could


lock them up and make sure that they were not able to pursue their nefarious activities. We must have an Army to prevent international anarchy. I cannot see the point of wanting to reduce the size of our Army, which is part of N.A.T.O., which is part of an international body whose purpose it is to preserve peace in the world.
In recent weeks we have seen the amalgamation of the Ayrshire Police Forces to help to preserve law and order in the area. My hon. Friend may know the international brigands, I do not. We are faced with a number of imponderable, and I maintain that in the present world situation we must make our contribution to preserving world peace. All I hope is that in fixing the size of our Forces the Government have consulted our friends and allies, and members of the United Nations who, like ourselves, are determined to defend our civilisation. I hope that the Government will withstand my hon. Friend's blandishments to strengthen the internal forces at the expense of the defence forces. A young man who wanted to join the Army would not be attracted to the police force in the same way.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I suppose that we must in these debates give the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) a chance to dree his weird—and pretty weird it is—but if he is to make six speeches on this annual event, the House must be protected against waste of time. I do not intend to waste time but to reinforce certain points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), about morale in the Army. The White Paper is evidence of the decline and failure of recruiting, and in answer to a recent Parliamentary Question I was told about the alarming increase in the number of officers applying to retire prematurely—from 408 in 1963 to 670 in 1967. It is no use having an Army unless the morale is strong, and the morale of our Army is very much weaker than the Secretary of State concedes.
On 4th March, he talked of "some temporary problems" affecting Service morale, and as usual erred on the side of optimism. There are some short-term problems of man management concerning

those serving with B.A.O.R., which the Government can and should tackle fairly smartly. Devaluation has had a disruptive effect on B.A.O.R. morale. A young soldier serving out there has written to me saying:
It is no secret that morale generally in B.A.O.R. has dropped tremendously since the effects of these new rates became apparent.
If the House could not follow what the Minister tried to tell us yesterday, perhaps I should point out that a reply to another Question of mine on this subject recently showed that, as a result of devaluation and even taking into account the new local overseas allowances, a captain in B.A.O.R. has had to take a pay cut of £9 6s. a month in D-marks value and a corporal a cut of £5 a month. Cuts like this will not improve morale.
I may return on some individual Votes to aspects of the Government's treatment of personnel moving to and from B.A.O.R. Apart from accusing the Government of not looking after the men's feet, which is an essential aspect of morale, I must also accuse the Secretary of State of damaging forces' morale and there can be no question of allowing him to escape his proper responsibility. We now have "Stability Healey" in charge of our defence. Colour television would be interesting in allowing us to see how his gills redden when he is pinned on the hook by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
But it is not just in this House that his performance matters but particularly in the Army, which is conscious and must be conscious of the policy and attitudes of the Government of the day and the personality of the Secretary of State. The Army cannot ignore these things. The Secretary of State has puzzled the House and the Army by his refusal to resign. They and we know that he has broken the rules on more than one occasion. He broke more than one rule in the Parkes case, for instance. He has shattered his own reputation. When he was first appointed, I heard him described—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the reputation of the Minister of Defence involved in Vote A?

Mr. Speaker: I hardly thought so.

Mr. Onslow: The morale of the Army is very much involved, and so are the number of men whom we seek in order to maintain the national defence, and the standing of the Secretary of State for Defence is very much involved in the morale of the Army—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) for calling the House to order, but we cannot discuss the whole question of defence or of the Ministry of Defence on this Vote.

Mr. Onslow: I am sorry if I allowed myself to mislead you, Mr. Speaker. What I was trying to do was to discuss the morale of the Army and the difficulty of employing in the service of the Crown the number of men proposed if morale was not as high as it should be. I was seeking to adduce the influence of the Secretary of State and his behaviour on the Army and to show it is the main cause why morale is not what it should be. I do not want to develop the point at length, and will make only this final comment. If the Secretary of State were to change, it is possible that the Army's morale might be much improved. If he went to the post he covets, the Foreign Office—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member pursues this too far we can have this debate on the three Votes before us—Army, Navy and Air Force, and then defence.

Mr. Onslow: I have no wish to make my present speech more often than the House would wish, which is once only, so I conclude by saying that if the right hon. Gentleman himself were to go out of office he would do the Army's morale the greatest service still in his power.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Boyden: With permission, I will speak for the third time tonight and try to answer as many of the questions as I can in the time available to me. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that the cost of the Army Cadet Force is about £1½ million a year, and that the cost of the Army part of the combined Cadet Force is about £½ million. I will, however, write to him about the details.
About 80 per cent. of the work of the M.R.E. is published, and the spin off for medicine, etc., is considerable. In addition, the scientific staff at M.R.E. frequently read papers to learned bodies. Work is done for the Medical Research Council and for bodies sponsored by it on repayment. There are contracts with several universities, but the details would be available only with the permission of the universities.
I appreciated the first part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). I would not dissociate myself from any political responsibility for the results of what Ministers do. I stand by this entirely. What I was anxious to establish was that the Army must get a fair crack of the whip in the House and with the public for what it does. I have always considered, and hon. Members opposite have always impressed it on me, that one of the purposes of the Estimates debate is to give the Army credit for its activities over the year. I was endeavouring to do that. I take full responsibility for the political side.
The Trucial and Oman Scouts are available for internal security and local defence. They make a valuable contribution to stability in the area, and will no doubt continue to do so. As for the careers of officers on secondment, when their tour is over the officers go back to the British Army and are available again.
The Gurkhas are remaining in Malaysia and Hong Kong until 1971, in accordance with the Prime Minister's statement of 16th January. Their movements after that will depend on the general discussion that will take place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Brigade is running down at about 2.000 a year, and this run-down will continue to the end of 1971, when the strength will be about 6.000—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would my hon. Friend give an assurance on behalf of the Government that any Gurkha wishing to settle in this country will not have his passport cancelled?

Mr. Boyden: They have to be discharged in Nepal. I am quite sure that there would be no discrimination against the Gurkhas, but I do not know that they would particularly want to come to this country in view of the climate.
I want to deal with allied questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) about looking after Service people and giving them good welfare conditions. I noted what the hon. Lady said. Conditions have very much improved in our comunications with local authorities. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has asked local authorities to treat all military people on the basis of housing need and not on the time they have lived in an area. Many local authorities are very helpful in this matter.

Sir Eric Errington: I received a letter only today from the Under-Secretary asking me to intervene with a local authority to get accommodation. Is it not possible for the Ministry of Defence to make an effort to persuade these people?

Mr. Boyden: We do so. Hon. Members are very helpful in this respect. Because of their local influence they can influence their local authorities. I frequently write to hon. Members to help in this way. Sometimes they know some of the background of such problems which is not known to me. Generally local authorities do what they can and in the hon. Member's area they are very helpful—and so is the hon. Member.
I agree very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said about provision of good houses and schools and looking after soldiers' families to improve their morale. They are finding these services acceptable. On one of the key factors in morale, the state of family union, in 1967 only 3 per cent. of officers and 5 per cent. of soldiers were separated from their families at their duty stations. That has improved from 7 per cent. and 11 per cent. respectively in 1966. This has been due in large measure to the purchase of private houses. Two thousand two hundred and sixty houses have been purchased and are occupied or ready for occupation and a further 2,280 are in various stages of completion and a small number have still to be found. There are 305 married quarters under construction under the accelerated building programme. The first of these are nearly complete and a further 1,138 are in planning.
Generally speaking, our experience in private house purchase has been that it has worked well, but there have been a number of cases where the local house owners thought the value of their property would deteriorate and they have made a fuss. There have been changes in this, for example in Uckfield where originally there were complaints, the local people held a barbecue for the incoming troops and everything turned out well. The principle trouble we have found is that soldiers' families tend to be rather more numerous than those other purchasers of houses. They tend to put greater pressure on school accommodation, but we have much improved the liaison with the schools. Service directors of education have met the secretary of the A.E.C., Sir William Alexander and he has done what the Minister of Housing and Local Government has done—asked local authorities to keep in the closest touch and to make improvements where they can. We also have good relations with the Department of Education and Science. Some of the problems which for example existed in this respect in Uckfield a year ago have been ironed out.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I am not clear about whether the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the point raised in the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about the garrison in Hong Kong. It might be misleading if it went out from this House that there is any question of reducing the garrison in Hong Kong.

Mr. Boyden: There is no question of that. I have been on good terms with my hon. Friend, but—

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm this or not?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, I did confirm it, three times.
There is one other important aspect of housing conditions which I think the hon. Member for Petersfield will be pleased about. It has some bearing on the hostility of people on housing estates who fear that the Army coming to them will bring down the value of their houses. We have gone to a great deal of trouble to maintain these estates in possibly a better condition than private householders. They will be maintained


uniformly. We are introducing a much better system of housing management throughout the Army. This is in process now, not only on the Army estates, as at Aldershot and so forth, but on the privately built estates and parts of such estates which we purchase. I am sure that this will have a good effect on the general atmosphere and on the actual look of the estates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield asked me about the 41 young Guardsmen. I was in Pirbright in the summer, although not at that particular unit, and I formed a very high opinion of the way that recruiting and the management of recruits was done. As I said earlier, I have been around a good deal to boys' training units, and, as a generalisation, I assure my hon. Friend that the standard of looking after the boys, bringing them on and giving them confidence is quite remarkably high. I have called for an inquiry into this particular incident. I shall personally look at its findings carefully to see whether there is anything wrong.
On the general issue, the parents and boys I have spoken to on the many occasions when I have had the opportunity have nothing but the highest regard for the confidence which is instilled into the young men, the education they receive, and so on. Only a few days ago, I was at Oswestry seeing a class of tough young men doing art with an enthusiasm one would expect to find at the Slade. I thought that it was a great credit to the Army that it could do the physical side of training, it could do the discipline side, and it could do the cultural side in that way.

Mr. Concannon: It did me quite a lot of good, too.

Mr. Boyden: It does a lot of people a lot of good.
I think that the best way to deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) is for me either to see him or write to him about it. It is a rather complicated problem. I cannot deal with it in the short time now left to me. I shall consider it sympathetically. I shall write to the hon.

Gentleman first, and, if he is not satisfied, he can come and see me.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) does not seem to appreciate that there is quite a big traffic between the Army and the police forces. The Guards, for example, have more or less an understanding about joining the Metropolitan Police when they leave the Army. My hon. Friend can rest assured that there is quite a good flow between the Services generally, and the Army in particular, and the police.
The hon. Lady the Member for Peters-field raised a question about the payment of pensions to other ranks. An experiment is being conducted on this. I shall look into it and see how it is going, and I shall be glad to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue.
Now, the question of morale which is constantly raised by hon. Members opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) raised it tonight, too. The career prospects of men and officers entering the Army now are as good as they have ever been in peacetime. The career structure for n.c.o.s has been redrafted and re-planned to give a rather better structure than existed before, and the career structure for officers will be no worse than it was.
There is a danger, when hon. Members opposite constantly harp on the subject of morale, that they may do damage to the cause in which they may well believe. As I said to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, I do not mind taking political responsibility at all. But this constant nagging away and saying that the morale of the troops is deteriorating all the time does not represent what I see with my own eyes when I meet the soldiers concerned, and I think it may well do damage in a way which hon. Members opposite would regret.

Amendment negatived.

Original Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 224,500, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1969.

Orders of the Day — MOTOR CARS (WINDSCREENS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Varley.]

11.59 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: Knowing, Mr. Speaker, of your interest in the arts, and music in particular, I only wish that my subject tonight in this Amendment debate dealt with our Bournemouth Municipal Orchestra instead of motor car windscreens.
If I may be allowed to do so, I would like to inform the House with great pride that the Bournemouth Municipal Orchestra was the first in the country, being founded in 1893, and on 22nd May this year it will have established itself for 75 years. A whole year of concerts has been presented to mark this unique event, which, indeed, will be something to mark British musical history.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I share the hon. Member's admiration for the Bournemouth Municipal Orchestra, but he must come to the subject of his debate.

Mr. Cordle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did that at the risk of being reproved by you. However, I must now deal with the question which has been my lot to deal with concerning motor car windscreens safety material and further accident and injury safeguards.
I welcome the opportunity to raise in the debate a matter of considerable importance to every car driver and passenger and, indeed, motor car manufacturers. In recent years we have reached what the Economist recently called the "cut-off point" in many of those technological developments which have transformed the world during the present century. This is certainly true of our present attitude to the motor car.
We are no longer so concerned with building vehicles which will travel at faster speeds. We have begun to explore ways of making vehicles safer at all speeds. This has been one of the most important aspects of our campaign to increase road safety. The figures show how important this task is.
Professor William Gissane, Director of the Road Industries Research Group at

Birmingham Accident Hospital, has estimated that the risk which we run of being killed, permanently disabled or seriously injured on the roads in any one year is about 500 to one. Statistically, it is the case that unless we make some dramatic improvement in road safety, more than half the children born this year will be involved in an accident at some time in their lives.
With those frightening figures in mind, it is, perhaps, less relevant to look at the economic cost of road accidents. Nevertheless, a Road Research Laboratory report estimated the cost of road accidents in this country in 1965 at £306 million. It also calculated that each road accident in Britain costs on average £1,020.
Everyone must welcome any reasonable steps taken by the Government to reduce the level of this slaughter and maiming on our roads. In the past, the sort of steps taken by Governments, here and abroad, have tended to concentrate on the twin themes of education and enforcement, but increasingly, as I mentioned earlier, we have begun to look at the engineering side of the problem.
How can we make cars and other vehicles safer? The Americans have probably done most work in this direction, in terms of federal regulations on standards of safety, in terms of letting some light on to the whole problem of vehicle safety—we remember here particularly the Nader Congressional hearings—and in terms of the work done by the motor industry itself.
In Britain, we have also taken steps to raise safety standards in vehicles. Regulations have been introduced recently covering standards for tyres, headlights, seat belts and rear reflectors, but, one part of the car which we have not so far considered is the windscreen. The importance of increasing the safety potential of the motor-car windscreen as a safeguard against accident and injury is the purpose of my seeking this debate.
It is all too easy to ignore the importance of the windscreen since, unlike, say, the steering column or the tyres, we never see it. We only see through it—unless, of course, it breaks. Yet the windscreen is a vital factor in car safety. Gallup Poll and its associates have just completed a study of this question in


France, Germany and the United Kingdom which provides us with a factual basis for this argument.
Their survey of the position in the United Kingdom showed that there are, on average, 215,000 windscreen breaks per year. Fifty-six thousand accident are caused as a direct result of these breaks. Of these, 1,300 involve serious injury or death and a further 9,000 are accidents with minor injuries. Since the average cost of replacing a windscreen in this country is apparently £12, we can calculate that the total cost of replacement for one year is £2½ million. It is clear that the importance of the windscreen in any survey of safety factors cannot be overlooked.
What should we expect of a windscreen? Ideally it should fulfil six safety functions. It should guarantee protection against the weather and ejection; it should be able to withstand peneration from flying objects—gravel on the road and stones—while at the same time not endangering a passenger thrown against it in a collision. Finally, it should not hold out for the passenger the possibility of those injuries normally associated with broken glass, and it should maintain clear vision even when it has been damaged.
During the last 40 years two types of glass have been used principally for motor car windscreens. The first is tempered glass, which is heat treated. While this is admittedly very hard and can withstand breakage from heavy, blunt objects, the whole surface can shatter, when it is struck by a pointed object, or when there is a sharp temperature change, into small, blunt-edged pieces. The result is partial or complete loss of visibility. The tempered glass windscreen does not, therefore, come near to fulfilling the functions outlined above.
The second type of glass used in screens is laminated. This has the great advantage of localising breaks to the point of contact, which means that practical visibility is not destroyed. Also, the tough plastic interlayer which binds together the two sheets of glass in a sort of sandwich holds broken glass in place and eliminates the risk of injuries from flying glass splinters. But until two-and-a-half years ago laminated glass had a

severe fault. It did not prevent the passenger penetrating the screen in the case of severe collisions. So this material also failed to meet all the safety requirement.
But within the last two-and-a-half years manufacturers have completed the successful development of a new laminate, called, in the jargon, improved high performance laminate. In September, 1965, this was introduced on all American cars for the model year 1966, and in July, 1966 it passed into the safety glazing standard of the American Standards Institute. In July last year the high performance windscreen was accepted into British Standard 857, covering the "Specifications for Safety Glass for Land Transport".
The essential improvement of this laminate is pliability. Modifications to the plastic interlayer mean that now the shock of impact has been absorbed to the point when a driver's or passenger's head will not suffer bone fracture or penetrate the windscreen. So this type of screen fulfils all the safety functions referred to already.
The success of the high performance screen has been attested to by several road safety research groups using laboratory simulated crash conditions. Among these groups are the French Government Car Testing Group and a department of the University of Berlin. Two American universities, one in Los Angeles and another in Detroit, have conducted similar tests with similarly successful results. But the real proof of the additional safety element provided by the high performance screen comes from actual accident studies. A recent report to the American Society of Automotive Engineers, based on studies of 400 accidents in California, stated that the improved laminated screen, first fitted on the 1966 American model cars, almost eliminates the injury-producing potential of the windscreen.
According to the American Federal Highway Administrator, medical research has shown that the
probability of given grades of severe injury is being reduced by the new type of laminate by some 70 per cent., based on comparison with other types of windscreens, including the tempered glass types.
In view of the overwhelming proof of the success of this screen in increasing safety,


I believe that it is vitally important that we should take steps to extend its use in this country. In the White Paper produced on road safety last year the Government said that they were considering with the motor industry a forward programme of action which both parties could take together for the next generation of safety advances in vehicle design and performance. Paragraph 39 of the White Paper mentioned the working groups which have considered specific aspects of vehicle safety. Many recommendations have already come forward from these groups and have been put into effect through regulations.
I should like to ask the Minister three questions on this point. First, are we to understand that the working group which is looking at further methods of improving road safety is considering the windscreen as part of its work? Second, what representations have the Government received from the motor industry on this question? Third, do the Government have any proposals to encourage or enforce the use of high performance laminated screens in new cars?
Turning briefly to the international aspect o this question, we should remember that the motor industry is our biggest exporter and, increasingly, it has to meet the different safety standards enforced in other countries. As Sir George Harriman, the President of the Society of Motor Manufacturers, said last October, there is a need for internationally agreed standards of safety; otherwise manufacturers will have to produce different models for each market. So far as the windscreen is concerned, 65 per cent. of all cars manufactured in the world are fitted with laminated screens, including many of the foremost British models. Most of these cars have changed from the old type of laminate to the high performance product.
There is at present no overall pattern of regulations on windscreens, but many countries are making the use of laminated glass mandatory. Italy, Canada and America have already taken this step. Sweden will follow suit next year. This affects our exporters in no small way since all cars exported to America and Canada have to conform to their safety standards and these countries import 700,000 cars each year. I realise that

the obvious differences between American and British cars, particularly as regards size, make it difficult to enforce precisely the same safety regulations in both countries. But in any agreed minimum code of safety recommendations for incorporation in vehicle design, surely the high performance laminated screen must find a place.
Remembering that the road safety White Paper told us that the Government proposed to hold discussions with the American authorities on possible co-operation in research and development to improve vehicle safety standards, could the Minister tell us whether these discussions have covered the windscreen as a safety factor? Also, looking at this question in the important setting of the European market, did the meeting of the Minister of Transport with her European colleagues last year include similar discussions? Do we propose to undertake any research, on our own or in concert with our American and European colleagues, into this question of the value of high performance laminated screens? Are we happy with the results of the research done abroad already?
Whatever additional research is done will surely only underline the stupidity of the present situation in which some British cars of the same model can have different and safer windscreens when they are exported than when they are sold at home. Should we not, as a matter of urgency, raise standards of windscreen safety at home and agree on generally acceptable standards on this feature of the car, and on others, with those who form the market for our motor exports?
I accept the statement in the White Paper that changes in design are costly and that we should concentrate on those measures which bring the best return in safety. I believe that the use of the high performance laminated screen is one of those measures. At relatively little expense, it will help us to make motorcars considerably safer, and that is a priority task.
May I in conclusion express the hope that the Minister will implement my proposal for all motorcars to be fitted, from the earliest moment convenient, with this laminated windscreen as a safeguard against injury.

12.15 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle), for having given me the opportunity of discussing one aspect of this very important subject of road safety. This is a question of such importance to us all that it is right and proper that we should consider any new measures which will make it safer for men, women, and children to venture upon our roads. It is, indeed, a matter which my right hon. Friend the Minister has in mind at all times, and I would like to remind hon. Members of what she stated in the White Paper on Road Safety to which the hon. Gentleman has referred this evening. There it is stated:
Through research and experiment on those aspects where the greatest dividends can be gained, we must prepare the basis for a planned, continuing, and co-ordinated attack.
Later in that White Paper the Minister stated:
The planning of road safety measures must start from the facts. To track down useful counter measures, we must collect the simple fact about every accident and identify the condition under which accidents are more frequent.
I would like to consider the problem which we are discussing this evening in the light of this stated policy. I do not think that it is true when we have been considering safety standards in vehicles that we have ignored the windscreen. We already have a provision in our Construction and Use Regulations that if a windscreen is made of glass it must be safety glass. Safety glass is defined as glass which is so constructed that, if fractured, it does not fly into fragments likely to cause severe cuts, and the object of that is quite clear. If no such provisions were made, then when there was an accident the immediate area would be likely to be bombarded with flying slivers of glass which could cause serious injuries, not only to the occupants of the vehicle, but also to innocent bystanders. There are also other considerations to be taken into account, and these fall into two main categories.
First, there is the question of the occupants of a vehicle in an accident being thrown forward against the windscreen and suffering injuries from coming into contact with the glass. Secondly, there is the possibility of the driver of a

vehicle losing his forward vision if the windscreen shatters either spontaneously or when it is struck by a flying pebble or chipping from the road surface. The hon. Member has tonight described the two types of glass which are generally used and which come under the definition of safety glass; but each has its merits and its disadvantages. In our present state of knowledge, neither has a clear cut advantage over the other and that is why our Regulations are worded in the way that they are; that is, to permit the use of either toughened or laminated glass. I would stress that this is in line with what most other countries are doing, although there are some notable exceptions, as the hon. Member has stated.
There is no doubt that the introduction of what the hon. Gentleman has described as the high performance laminated glass has overcome some of the inherent disadvantages of this type of glass, and when the British Standard for safety glass was recently revised this was taken into account. The conditions with which laminated glass must now comply imply the use of the new, higher performance laminate; but, as I have said, there are still advantages and disadvantages in either type.
What are some of the other considerations? I will deal first with the question of vehicle occupants impacting the windscreen. When this happens with a toughened glass screen, it collapses into small particles. The fracture patterns which must be achieved are contained in the British standard. The newer "zone toughened windscreen" has a larger pattern in an area ahead of the driver if it shatters. Although the occupants of the vehicle may penetrate the screen if they strike it hard enough, any cuts which they may suffer would be minimal. With laminated glass, even if the newer, thicker. laminate prevents the occupants from penetrating the screen, the layer of glass on the inside of the laminate next to the person striking it, cracks in the same way as any ordinary pane of glass. This, after all, is what it is, and although the glass is prevented from fracturing completely as ordinary glass would, there could still be a number of very sharp edges along the lines of the cracks. It often happens that when the head of a person strikes against it, it is then dragged down the crack, and there have been severe head injuries as a result.
Perhaps I might say here that if everyone had seat belts, as my right hon. Friend has advised, these accidents would be reduced; and if all those who have them used them, the benefit would be considerable. However, at present this is unfortunately not so. We have not yet convinced everyone of the importance of seat belts, so that there is always this possibility of people being lacerated when hitting the windscreen.
As far as the loss of vision is concerned, there is no doubt that the driver of a car with a laminated windscreen is less likely to have his forward vision completely obscured if that screen is broken than the driver of a car with a toughened glass windscreen, even with the zone toughened glass. Apart from the breaks which occur when a windscreen is struck by a flying pebble or chippings from the road surface, there is, with the toughened glass screen, the problem of spontaneous shattering.
The Road Research Laboratory is studying this problem but has no evidence to show that, when this does occur, it is any appreciable cause of accidents. It is difficult to get fully reliable data on the subject, but our area road safety units, when asked the same question recently, said that the evidence they have from the accidents which they studied shows that this is the cause of less than 0·1 per cent. of all accidents.
I know that a social survey organisation recently carried out an investigation on behalf of a commercial company the results of which suggest that shattering of windscreens may be a more frequent cause of accidents. That company has brought the results of the survey to the notice of the R.R.L. as well as to ourselves and has very kindly made them available to us for further consideration. The R.R.L. will study the results. It has not yet had time to do so. When it has, it will let us know its findings and we will give them due consideration. Until that is done, it would not be right for me to comment on the survey.
There is also the question of costs. The hon. Member said that the cost of replacement of broken windscreens is about £2½ million a year and this may well be true, but there are other aspects of the matter. At the moment, a toughened glass windscreen for a small family car costs about £4, while a

laminated screen for the same car costs some £15. The cost of each type of screen increases, of course, with the size and complexity of design but it seems that this differential in cost of about £10 is fairly representative even with the more expensive types of screen. We realise that, if laminated glass was in higher demand, the cost might come down but it is difficult to estimate by how much.
In itself perhaps, the £10 or so for each car which would be involved if we were to make the fitting of laminated windscreens obligatory for new vehicles, is not a great deal extra to pay if the safety of road users is going to be materially improved, but when one remembers that, in 1966, for instance, some 1·3 million new vehicles were registered in this country, this would represent a total cost of about £13 million a year. Should we get a significant reduction in accidents or casualties for expenditure of this order? That question is in doubt. At the moment, we do not think the reduction would be significant but we are always prepared to reconsider, if the results of further investigation by the R.R.L. prove otherwise.
The hon. Gentleman has posed some specific questions about consultation both with our own industry and internationally on this question and I will try to answer them. First, the Working Party mentioned in the White Paper, which is considering the general aspects of the construction and design of motor vehicles, has not considered the question of windscreens as yet.
As to the hon. Gentleman's second question, our own industry is at present of the same opinion as ourselves—that, in our present state of knowledge, we should continue to permit the use of either toughened or laminated glass and that manufacturers should be allowed to continue to decide which type of glass is best suited to any particular type of vehicle.
Customer preferences are also considered by some manufacturers, who offer laminated glass as an optional alternative if the standard fitting is for toughened glass. So far as any proposals are concerned to encourage or enforce the use of high performance screens in new cars, the answer at the moment is that the Government have


no intention of making any such requirement. As I have said, however, if the results of the research going on indicate that we should make some alterations, then, of course, in consultation with the industry, we should consider doing so. As to the fitting of laminated screens to cars intended for export, our understanding from the industry is that this creates no great difficulty.
In the United States, where laminated glass is obligatory, research has gone on and the findings of some of the studies have recently been published. These show that there has been a considerable drop in casualties inflicted in one way or another by the windscreen since the use of the new laminated glass was made obligatory. No one will quar

rel with these statistics, but it must be remembered that the comparison in the United States is between the new and old types of laminated glass. It is not possible, at this stage, to draw any comparison from these statistics with what the results might have been had the use of toughened glass also been permitted.
We do not, therefore, at the moment intend altering our Regulations on this subject. We have undertaken to keep the matter under consideration, and if evidence is eventually forthcoming that one type of safety glass has significant advantages over the other, we will not waste any time in reopening the question.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve o'clock.